Prayers - 
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Virtual participation in proceedings commenced (Orders, 4 June and 30 December 2020).
[NB: [V] denotes a Member participating virtually.]

Oral
Answers to
Questions

Digital, Culture, Media and Sport

The Secretary of State was asked—

Tourism Industry: Covid-19

Caroline Ansell: What steps his Department is taking to support the recovery of the tourism industry from the covid-19 pandemic.

Henry Smith: What steps his Department is taking to support the recovery of the tourism industry from the covid-19 pandemic.

Gordon Henderson: What steps his Department is taking to support the recovery of the tourism industry from the covid-19 pandemic.

Nigel Huddleston: We recognise the impact of covid-19 on the tourism industry, which is why we published the tourism recovery plan to help the sector to return to pre-pandemic levels as quickly as possible and build back better for the future. The Government have already provided over £25 billion of support to the tourism, leisure and hospitality sectors in the form of grants, loans and tax breaks. As our plan sets out, we will continue to support the sector as it recovers.

Caroline Ansell: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer and for his visit last week to my beautiful constituency of Eastbourne, where he will have seen no shortage of ambition or potential—only a shortage of new recruits to the hospitality workforce. What plans do he and the Department have to promote careers in hospitality and tourism, which is a vital sector in the UK and in Eastbourne? Would maintaining the 5% VAT rate help employers to offer ever more competitive wages?

Nigel Huddleston: It was a joy to join my hon. Friend in her incredibly sunny and warm constituency last week and see at first hand the hard work she has been doing on behalf of her constituents, and particularly those in the tourism sector. I know she shares my view that developing skills and careers within tourism and hospitality is vital for the sector’s recovery. As stated in the tourism recovery plan, we will work closely with the sector to ensure that businesses can employ more UK  nationals in year-round better paid, high-quality tourism jobs. Regarding extending the temporary VAT cut, as we discussed last week, including with her constituents, the Government keep all taxes under review. I have noted her suggestion and I am sure that Treasury Ministers have, too.

Henry Smith: Inbound tourism in normal times contributes about £28 billion to the UK economy. What discussions has my hon. Friend had with other Departments about reopening safe international travel so that UK tourism jobs can be protected and indeed grown as we go forward?

Nigel Huddleston: I know what a great champion my hon. Friend is for tourism and international travel, as we heard at Prime Minister’s questions yesterday. He is right that inbound tourism is vital. A lot of talk has been about outbound tourism, which is also a really important sector, but, in 2019, 40 million visitors came to the UK, spent money and had a great time. We are having frequent conversations. I talk to the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts)—the aviation Minister—and others on an almost daily basis. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy also has an interest in this area. I can therefore assure my hon. Friend that we are having many cross-Government discussions about the importance of the tourism, international travel and aviation sectors.

Gordon Henderson: As more people decide to holiday at home in the UK, we have a golden opportunity to improve the economy of our seaside communities, some of which have high levels of social deprivation. However, to direct visitors to those areas, we need more brown tourist signs on motorways and major trunk roads. What support can my hon. Friend give to the campaign in my constituency to get Highways England to put up a brown tourist sign on the M2 to showcase the many wonderful attractions on the Isle of Sheppey?

Nigel Huddleston: I commend my hon. Friend for his work on behalf of tourism businesses on the Isle of Sheppey. The purpose of brown signs is primarily to direct road users to a tourism attraction or facility to aid the efficient management of traffic. They are not meant to be billboards or adverts as such, but, as he articulated, they do fulfil a useful purpose. He will be aware that such decisions are for local authorities and Highways England, but I appeal to them to listen sympathetically to his request.

Alex Sobel: I have been speaking to leaders in the tourism industry who are distinctly underwhelmed by the Minister’s tourism recovery plan. An inclusivity ambassador, a rail pass and £10 million of vouchers is not the level of ambition that they were expecting from the much vaunted plan. In particular, coach operators, fairgrounds and tour guides missed out on support during the pandemic. What sector-specific support does the Minister plan to give to those areas that missed out on support during the lockdown and pandemic and had to suffer through three consecutive winters with a lack of support from the Government?

Nigel Huddleston: To date, as the hon. Member will be aware, the Government have provided more than £25 billion of support for the tourism, hospitality and leisure sector. That may not be appreciated by him but I know it has been by the sector as a whole. We are continuing to give support and that number will go up considerably. In terms of the sectors that have not automatically qualified for assistance, that is precisely why, as I have stated in the Chamber, the additional restrictions grants were out there—more than £1 billion of funding to help those sectors that did not automatically qualify—and we will keep the support under review constantly. Many in the sector welcome the ambition in the tourism recovery plan not only to get back to 2019 levels of tourism activity domestically and inbound, but to go well beyond that, and I hope that the Opposition will work with me and others to achieve that goal.

Channel 4

Anum Qaisar-Javed: What recent discussions his Department has had with relevant stakeholders on the future of Channel 4.

Tan Dhesi: What plans the Government have to privatise Channel 4.

Navendu Mishra: What plans the Government have to privatise Channel 4.

John Whittingdale: As part of our ongoing strategic review of the UK’s system of public service broadcasting, the Government are consulting this summer on the future of Channel 4, including its ownership model and remit, and we intend to engage a broad range of stakeholders to inform any decisions taken.

Anum Qaisar-Javed: As part of its public service broadcaster responsibilities, Channel 4 does not have an in-house production function, relying on independent external production houses. Former Channel 4 commissioning editor Peter Grimsdale said that over 1,000 such production companies have been supported over the years. How do the Government mean to support those production houses if they sell off Channel 4, or do the thousands of jobs that would be destroyed in the sector not matter to this Tory Government?

John Whittingdale: The hon. Lady is right that Channel 4 does not have an in-house production company, which means that it is entirely dependent on advertising revenue, which is one of the reasons why we think it right to look at the ownership model, but it does support independent production right across the United Kingdom. That is part of its remit and we intend to preserve the remit, although we will be examining whether that needs to be changed—indeed, possibly strengthened in some areas—as part of our consultation.

Tan Dhesi: Channel 4 is a great British success story and an iconic institution. It has invested £12 billion in the independent production sector and regional TV, given voice to local communities across our country, and exported content around the world; and it has recorded a record £74 million financial surplus. Despite all those successes, for the sixth time, the Conservative Government are seeking to privatise it, even though  they concluded just four years ago that that was a very bad idea. Could that possibly be because “Channel 4 News” is doing a solid job, in particular, of holding an incompetent and crony-connected Government to account?

John Whittingdale: I share the hon. Gentleman’s view that Channel 4, which was, of course, the creation of a Conservative Government, has done an excellent job and it is our intention to sustain it into the future. That is why we believe that now is the right time to look at its future ownership, because it is coming under increasing pressure due to the changes taking place in the way in which television is consumed. While I may not always agree with “Channel 4 News”, I do believe it does a good job. I very strongly support plurality of news providers and would expect that Channel 4 will continue to feature a news service as part of its future offering, and that would remain part of its remit.

Navendu Mishra: John McVay, the chief executive of the Producers Alliance for Cinema and Television, has described Channel 4 as
“a catalyst for generations of entrepreneurs”,
which
“plays a critical role in the UK’s broadcasting ecology”,
having
“invested in hundreds of independent production companies over the nearly 40 years of its existence, enabling and improving access, skills, international activity and diversity.”
Would the Minister agree with me that selling off this precious public asset to an overseas competitor with no remit for commissioning innovative British content would be a body blow to the UK’s creative economy?

John Whittingdale: I agree that selling off Channel 4 with no remit would be a mistake and that is certainly not our intention. John McVay, who is somebody I know well and have a great deal of respect for, is right that Channel 4 has done an excellent job in investing in independent production, but it is up against competition from big streaming services that can make 10 times the kind of investment that Channel 4 is capable of. That is why we think it is the right time to look at its ownership in order that, potentially, it can have access to much greater capital, which it will need in order to have a thriving future.

Julian Knight: My own personal view, and I stress that it is my personal view, is that the recovery of Channel 4 and the evolving media landscape warrant close consideration of privatisation and sale. Four years is a lifetime in the modern media marketplace. Does the Minister agree that this would be a good juncture at which also to consider whether Channel 4 could be bolstered by a merger with ITV or even by hiving off BBC Worldwide, the commercial arm of the BBC, which has often underperformed but has tremendous international potential to build scale for Channel 4?

John Whittingdale: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I commend him and his Select Committee for the excellent report on public service broadcasting that they produced recently, which drew attention to the fact that the way in which we consume television is changing fast and that the switch from linear to digital is taking place even more quickly than some people anticipated. We  have reached no conclusion as to the appropriate future ownership model for Channel 4—we maintain a completely open mind—but he raises a number of interesting possibilities and we look forward to seeing what submissions we receive as part of the consultation.

John Nicolson: The case for the privatisation of Channel 4 was, of course, debunked by the then Secretary of State last time the issue reared its head. I think her assessment was that it would be too much grief for too little money. Privatisation would see profit put first, a slash in the £500 million that goes annually to independent production companies, a centralisation of headquarters—the antithesis of levelling up—and likely cuts to Channel 4’s brilliant news and current affairs programming. Channel 4 recorded record profits last year and it does not cost the taxpayer a penny. Given that this much-loved institution is profitable and free, why do Ministers want to do down Britain and sell it off to avaricious American investors?

John Whittingdale: The hon. Gentleman is wrong on several counts. It is the case that Channel 4 recorded a profit last year, and I commend the management for taking the action that made that possible, but the reason they did so was because they cut the amount of money that they spent on content by £140 million in anticipation of a big fall in advertising revenue, which indeed took place. It is to sustain Channel 4 going forward that we are looking at the possibility of alternative ownership models, and it would certainly be our intention that Channel 4 would do more outside London and across the United Kingdom, not less.

Chris Matheson: “Countdown”, “Derry Girls”, “Gogglebox”, “The Word”, “It’s a Sin”, “Chewing Gum”—which gave us the astonishing Michaela Coel for the first time—“Educating Yorkshire”, “24 hours in A&E”, “24 hours in Police Custody”, “Location, Location, Location” with Phil and Kirstie, “Friday Night Dinner”—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I am not sure what we need now is the telephone book.

Chris Matheson: I will simply finish with “Hollyoaks” and “The Secret Life of the Zoo”, Mr Speaker, which as you know have something in common with me—[Laughter.] They were both filmed in Chester. For four decades, Channel 4 has reflected and given voice to the diverse parts of the United Kingdom. Why do the Minister and the Government want to take that voice away and, as other hon. Members have said, sell it off to foreign tech companies that have no loyalty to the United Kingdom?

John Whittingdale: I am extremely impressed by the hon. Gentleman’s viewing habits, although I notice he left out “Naked Attraction”, which certainly does appeal to diverse tastes. However, I absolutely agree that Channel 4 has been responsible for some great programmes over the years, and it is our intention that it should be able to continue to do that in the coming years. It is precisely because it is going to need access to investment capital in order to maintain that record that we think now is the right time to consider alternative models, but we have not reached any conclusion yet.

Important Historical Documents

Barry Sheerman: What steps he is taking to ensure that documents of historical importance are retained in the UK.

Caroline Dinenage: The UK’s export control system provides a safety net to protect our national treasures from being sold abroad, whereby Ministers can delay the issuing of an export licence to allow an opportunity for a UK buyer to acquire it. Between 2008 and 2018, 62 items were saved for the nation in this way. A recent example was the notebooks of Sir Charles Lyell, the renowned Scottish geologist who influenced Charles Darwin, which were acquired by the University of Edinburgh in 2019.

Barry Sheerman: May I declare an interest as chair of the John Clare Trust, a charitable trust, and of course one of my daughters is a poet? May I draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that we have discovered in recent weeks a beautiful treasure trove of letters from the Brontës, Jane Austen and Robert Burns? It is unique. If we cannot act now and raise £15 million to keep it in this country, it will be broken up and sold at auction in New York. Will the Minister and the Government help us? Could the National Trust, which has huge reserves, help us to keep it in Britain? Most of the literary houses have had a year of no income and are struggling to help and raise this money. We desperately need this collection kept in our country. Will she help and help soon?

Caroline Dinenage: The Government are delighted that a public consortium led by the Friends of the National Libraries has come together to seek to acquire the Honresfield library. We hope that the fundraising campaign is successful and is able to realise its plans to allocate parts of the collection to libraries around the UK, for the benefit of the public. We will, of course, keep a very close eye on this and I know that the Secretary of State is planning to meet the group shortly.

Electronic Communications Code

Heather Wheeler: If he will make it his policy to conduct an impact assessment of the potential financial effect on community organisations of proposals to reform the electronic communications code.

Matt Warman: The Government are currently considering the responses to the consultation on the electronic communications code, which closed in March, and we will, of course, carefully consider the impact of our proposals on all stakeholders, including community organisations, which we all value so highly.

Heather Wheeler: I thank the Minister for his answer. He will be aware that thousands of farmers, churches and community groups who host mobile telecoms infrastructure on their land have faced financial hardship because of the 2017 ECC reform, with some seeing enforced rent reductions of up to 90%, as has happened in my constituency. What measures is he planning to support those who face losing these critical sources of income? Will he kindly agree to meet me and representatives of these impacted groups as soon as possible?

Matt Warman: I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend to discuss this. It is important to be clear that those 2017 reforms were intended to cut the amount paid by operators and put them on a similar footing to other utilities, and that supports the roll-out of connectivity that we all want to see. However, it is important that the negotiations that take place are fair commercial ones and that landowners ultimately receive a fair price. The reason we are consulting as we speak is to make sure that the system works effectively and that those fair prices are delivered.

Digital Connectivity: Rural Areas

Jerome Mayhew: What steps his Department is taking to improve digital infrastructure and connectivity in rural areas.

Matt Warman: The Government are focused intently on improving digital infrastructure and connectivity in rural areas, both through the £5 billion Project Gigabit programme and the £1 billion shared rural network. That will deliver huge increases in connectivity across the whole country, while Project Gigabit provides fibre to at least 85% of the country.

Jerome Mayhew: I very much welcome Tuesday’s announcement on the shared rural network and the news that 98% of my constituency will receive some form of coverage. However, those who visit Great Snoring and many other villages in my constituency will find that they have to go outside to get a signal, if they get one at all. Will the Minister confirm to me that in order to claim this coverage people have to have a signal sufficiently strong to penetrate a normal building, so they can have a conversation inside and not only in the garden?

Matt Warman: The target of the 4G shared rural network is based on outside coverage, but of course the effect of that outside coverage is a huge halo that brings signals indoors: into, as my hon. Friend puts it, normal homes and beyond. I think we will see a really significant improvement in indoor coverage, alongside an improvement on 45,000 km of roads and in 1.2 million businesses and homes across the country.

Tourism Recovery Plan

Neale Hanvey: What further steps the Government plans to take to support travel agencies as part of the implementation of the tourism recovery plan.

Nigel Huddleston: The Government have provided more than £25 billion in support to the tourism, hospitality and leisure sectors over the course of the pandemic. We are continuing to support travel agents with, for example, restart grants and the extended furlough scheme. Our tourism recovery plan sets out a range of measures to support the sector, with the aim of recovering domestic tourism to pre-pandemic levels by 2022 and international travel by 2023, both at least a year faster than independent forecasters predict.

Neale Hanvey: The headline numbers—that £25 billion—tell only part of the story. Unfortunately, because of the asymmetry of the Government support and the asymmetry of the travel recovery plan, much of that money has not found its way into the hands of travel agents such as Moorelands Travel and Travel Your World in my Kirkaldy and Cowdenbeath constituency. These family-run small and medium-sized enterprises have, like many others across the country, kept the lights on for the travel industry. They have given their all and sold the silver, and there is nothing left to give. They now face the possibility of going under. That will disrupt holidays and the travel recovery itself, so will the Minister explain to them—not to me—why their efforts and their businesses no longer matter?

Nigel Huddleston: The hon. Gentleman’s final comment is an unfortunate characterisation. He will be aware that many elements of the tourism sector are devolved matters, but we are working co-operatively with the Scottish Government on many issues. The Scottish Government have developed their recovery plan and we have developed one as well, and it does have UK-wide implications. For those sectors in England that have been unable to get grants and support automatically, we have put in place measures to help them, such as the additional restrictions grant. We will continue to assess support measures.

Paralympic Games

Lisa Cameron: What plans his Department has to (a) promote and (b) encourage people to watch the Paralympic Games in summer 2021.

John Whittingdale: The Paralympic games are one of the highlights of the sporting calendar. In recognition of their special national significance, we added the Paralympic games to the listed events regime in 2020, meaning that they will remain available on free-to-air television. I wish all our athletes every success in Tokyo and very much welcome Channel 4’s plans to broadcast live coverage of the Paralympics throughout the games.

Lisa Cameron: New research by Scope has shown that 69% of people with disabilities believe that the Paralympics help to tackle negative attitudes. This comes as three in four people with disabilities believe that the public’s perceptions of disabled people have worsened or not shifted during the pandemic. Scope and ParalympicsGB have teamed up to call for the Paralympic games to be a catalyst for change. The all-party group on disability, which I chair, asks the Secretary of State and the Government to commit to work across broadcasting to champion inclusion in sports and employment for people with disabilities, alongside celebrating the fantastic achievements of our Paralympians.

John Whittingdale: The Government absolutely share the ambition of the hon. Lady and her all-party group to increase the participation by disabled people in sport. The Paralympics have been an extraordinary success in demonstrating the remarkable achievements of disabled athletes. I share her hope that the Paralympics will again receive record viewing figures and that the UK Paralympic athletes will continue to do as well as they have in recent times.

Cultural and Sporting Sectors: Covid-19

Chris Green: What steps his Department is taking to open up the cultural and sporting sectors as covid-19 restrictions are eased.

Oliver Dowden: We have provided unprecedented support for arts and sports and have only just opened up applications for the latest round of the £2 billion culture recovery fund. That will focus specifically on helping sectors to reopen fully. Our aim is, of course, to get everything—sports, live music and cultural events—back at full capacity from 19 July, and we are making good progress towards that goal.

Chris Green: The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care said that, if the direction of travel in respect of covid data is maintained, we will be able to have our terminus day on 19 July. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that terminus day means an end to social distancing, an end to compulsory mask wearing and a full return to normal, not just for the end of July but permanently?

Oliver Dowden: As my hon. Friend rightly says, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has said, we are making very good progress towards 19 July. We are hopeful and, indeed, confident that we will be able to remove, as planned at stage 4, all the remaining legal limits on social contact, reopen the remaining closed settings and remove all limits on weddings and other life events. That is very much what I am working towards.

National Lottery Licence: Procurement

Carolyn Harris: What progress he has made on the procurement process for the fourth national lottery licence.

John Whittingdale: The Gambling Commission is running the competition for the next national lottery licence, which will come into force in August 2023. The Gambling Commission has undertaken several rounds of market engagement with prospective applicants, and I was pleased to note that the commission received the expected number of applications. We expect to announce the preferred applicant at the end of the year.

Carolyn Harris: The Gambling Commission has turned down an invitation to appear before the gambling-related harm all-party group to discuss the upcoming national lottery licence procurement and the performance of the current provider. Many products developed by the current provider, such as online instant win games, have potential to cause serious harms, so will the Minister reassure the House that there will be proper scrutiny of the next provider and that appropriate harm prevention measures will be introduced?

John Whittingdale: The incidence of problem gambling is lowest among players of the National Lottery, but nevertheless the need for protection of players remains of paramount importance. It was for that reason that the Government recently increased the minimum age for purchase of national lottery tickets from 16 to 18,  and I can assure the hon. Lady that we will continue to monitor, as will the Gambling Commission, whether any further measures are necessary.

Topical Questions

Jamie Wallis: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Oliver Dowden: I have announced ambitious proposals for broadcasting reform, including the equalisation of regulation of video on demand services, such as Netflix and Amazon Prime, prominence for public service broadcasters, and the potential change in ownership of Channel 4 in order to secure its long-term success.
We continue to work closely with all our sectors as we plan for the full reopening on 19 July, and our next wave of pilots is helping us to do so safely and permanently. One of those pilots will, of course, now go down in history after England’s glorious win at Wembley on Tuesday, and I know that the whole House will join me in wishing the team the very best of luck in the quarter finals in Rome on Saturday.

Jamie Wallis: I want to draw my right hon. Friend’s attention to the issue of displaying the Union flag in the Welsh Parliament. As many will know, the Presiding Officer of the Senedd banned the display of the Union flag by Conservative Members last week. Yesterday, the First Minister, Mark Drakeford, described it as “vacuous symbolism” by
“tea towel Tories of 2021”.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that people across Wales are proud to display the Union Jack because of their pride in the country in which they live and of what the UK stands for? What actions will—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I think we’ve got it. Sorry, but topical questions are to be short.

Oliver Dowden: I share my hon. Friend’s pride in the Union flag, because it unites us as a nation and a people. As he well knows, the Union flag is the national flag of the United Kingdom, and it is so called because it embodies the emblems of three countries united under one sovereign: the kingdoms of England, Wales, Scotland and, of course, Northern Ireland. It is quite extraordinary that the First Minister should describe it as vacuous symbolism by tea towel Tories. It really does show how out of touch he is with the people of Wales, and the Labour party is with the wider United Kingdom.

Jo Stevens: I remind the Secretary of State of the election results in Wales in May.
I too wish England all the best for the quarter finals. It was a fantastic game, and I look forward to a repeat of the performance in the quarter finals.
On 23 March, the Minister for Digital and Culture, when asked about Government-backed insurance for the live events industry, said that
“the decision is with the Treasury right now.”—[Official Report, 23 March 2021; Vol. 691, c. 309WH.]
We are three and a half months on, and there is silence from the Government. Can the Secretary of State say today whether the Government are going to underwrite time-limited insurance for live events? The industry just needs to know the answer—a straight yes or no, please.

Oliver Dowden: I very much understand the industry’s desire for insurance, and I have engaged with it. I have said all along that, as with film and TV insurance, the first step is to get all the other restrictions removed. We are making very good progress towards doing that on the 19th. At that point, if there is a market failure, namely that the commercial insurance providers cannot insure for that, we will look at whether we can extend insurance with some sort of Government-backed scheme. We are engaging extensively with the Treasury and other Government Departments to see what that might look like.

Jo Stevens: Festivals continue to be cancelled, even those scheduled for after 19 July, such as Womad, because the Government still have not published any guidance about sector reopening. They were forced into publishing the results of the events research programme last week after our urgent question, but they are also briefing to the press that nightclubs, for example, are going to reopen with no testing or proof of vaccine requirements. Businesses have had 15 long months of this chaos. The Secretary of State will not confirm insurance now and he will not publish guidance, so will he explain how festivals and live events scheduled for after 19 July can go ahead?

Oliver Dowden: As I have said previously, we are making very good progress towards 19 July. Given that the evidence is suggesting that despite rising infections, we are breaking the linkage to hospitalisations and deaths, I really do hope and expect that we will be able to have that full reopening from 19 July. We have always said that we would clarify and confirm that at least a week in advance, which would be by 12 July. Festivals have benefited from millions of pounds of wider support through the culture recovery fund, and, of course, at least one of our events research programme pilots is in relation to a festival.

Andrew Percy: At the risk of sounding like a broken record, may I ask the Secretary of State how the shared rural network and other measures are finally going to get us the improvements in mobile phone coverage across north Lincolnshire and the East Riding of Yorkshire that we so desperately still need?

Matt Warman: The shared rural network will eliminate the partial notspots across huge swathes of the country, particularly in Yorkshire and the Humber; it will take the region from 95% to 99% coverage from at least one operator, and from 81% to 90% coverage from all four operators. I know how hard my hon. Friend has been working on this issue, and I look forward to working with him to continue that progress.

Julie Elliott: May I take this opportunity to wish the Sunderland Empire in my constituency a happy 114th birthday?
The Government boast free trade deals with 17 countries, each having different rules, making the situation almost as hard as it is with countries with which we do not have trade deals. When are the Government going to sort this out and get a deal to allow our artists, musicians, truckers and support staff to tour across Europe properly, and save this industry before it is too late?

Caroline Dinenage: We are 100% aware of the importance of the UK’s creative and cultural industries, and the importance of musicians and performers being able to tour easily abroad. We have moved with great urgency to provide the clarity that they need about the current position. Through our engagement with member states, we have established that at least 17 of the 27, including France, Germany and Italy—some of the biggest economic contributors—do allow visa and permit-free touring. We continue to talk to the others.

Christian Wakeford: I think we can all agree that football is absolutely, 100%, definitely coming home. With charity beginning at home, when the two come together they are absolutely unstoppable. This weekend, I am joining the Maccabi 24-hour football challenge in Prestwich in my constituency. Will the Minister join me in wishing everyone the best of luck and crossing his fingers for the best weather for us?

Nigel Huddleston: I am afraid that I cannot promise the weather—I wish I could! I am delighted to join my hon. Friend in wishing all those participating in the Maccabi 24-hour football challenge the very best of luck. I have no doubt that the time will fly by if they keep top of mind the inspirational example of Harry Kane and Raheem Sterling from Tuesday’s success against Germany. This is a fantastic opportunity for volunteers to raise money for their club to refurbish a local pitch, and I understand that the FA will be matching some of the money raised. I wish him the very best of luck.

Jeff Smith: Nightclubs cannot open today, and they do not know in what capacity and under what rules they will be working when they do. They have no income and are still racking up debts, and today they have to start paying towards furlough payments. Does the Secretary of State think that is fair on them?

Oliver Dowden: Nightclubs actually fall within the responsibility of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, but I am very happy to answer the question. The key thing is to get them to reopen. We are making very good progress towards doing that on 19 July. Many of the existing schemes—certainly the culture recovery fund—will continue to pay out for the coming weeks and months. Indeed, we have said that claims can be made in respect of the culture recovery fund until the end of this year, so a wide range of support remains available for our cultural institutions.

David Simmonds: Many of my constituents have benefited hugely from investment by Hillingdon Council in youth facilities. The youth investment fund has the potential  to bring these benefits to a much wider group of young people. Will my hon. Friend provide an update on the plans the Department has for the use of this money?

Matt Warman: The youth investment fund aims to level up access to youth provision over the course of this Parliament, but £30 million has already been committed as capital funding in 2021-22. That will provide investment in new and refurbished safe spaces for young people so that they can access support from youth workers and enjoy beneficial activities, including sport and culture. We know how valuable these facilities are, and details of the bidding process for the next rounds will be announced in due course.

Attorney General

The Attorney General was asked—

Court Cases: Media Comment

Lee Anderson: What steps he has taken to help ensure that court cases are not prejudiced by inappropriate (a) reporting by the media and (b) comment by the public.

Lindsay Hoyle: The question has been withdrawn, but I will ask the Attorney General to provide an answer, then I will call Kenny MacAskill to ask his supplementary.

Michael Ellis: In order to avoid prejudice to criminal proceedings, I may issue what is called a media advisory notice in order to inform and ensure responsible media coverage. I have launched a campaign called #thinkbeforeyoupost to promote awareness of the risks of ill-judged social media posts. It is critical that the evidence is tested before a jury—any evidence should be tested before a jury—in a court of law and not in the court of public opinion.

Kenny MacAskill: In a recent Scottish case, a High Court judge suggested that offences by a blogger were to be dealt with differently from similar breaches by mainstream media. Given that most, if not all, of the recent serious breaches have been carried out by the mainstream media, and given moreover that the press and media are evolutionary, with many of the current mainstream media once themselves having been radical outsiders supporting, for example, universal franchise, does the Attorney General agree that while bloggers rightly require to be held to account, they are equally entitled to the protections that apply to the rest of the mainstream media?

Michael Ellis: Everyone is equal under the law. In general, the media are responsible and are very much aware of reporting restrictions, the limitations on reporting of active proceedings, and what reporting might amount to a contempt of court. As I said, I do issue and have issued media advisory notices where that is not happening and in exceptional cases. The hon. Gentleman’s point about bloggers and others on social media is a live one. It is right that everyone is aware that whether they have training or not, they are responsible under the law for what they post. Interfering in, prejudicing or undermining court proceedings is a serious matter and can be visited with a sentence of up to two years’ imprisonment.

Royal Albert Hall: Charity Tribunal

Sharon Hodgson: If he will make it his policy to support the Charity Commission’s request to refer the Royal Albert Hall to the charity tribunal.

Michael Ellis: The disagreement between the Charity Commission and the Royal Albert Hall is long-running and raises complex issues of charity law. The parties have been asked to try to resolve these issues without recourse to potentially costly litigation. That process is ongoing. My officials are continuing to engage with the parties to assist them in working through the contentious matters raised by this case.

Sharon Hodgson: A face-value ticket for an Eric Clapton concert in May next year at the Royal Albert Hall costs £175, yet tickets are on sale on Viagogo at a 577% mark-up, at £1,185 per ticket. The seats in question are owned by a party related to a vice-president of the corporation. The Attorney General wrote to me last week to say that he wishes to
“move this matter towards a satisfactory resolution as swiftly as possible.”
Will he therefore take immediate action on this serious and clear conflict of interest at a British institution and permit the Charity Commission to take this to a tribunal?

Lindsay Hoyle: Eric Clapton is a rock star, just to help the Attorney General!

Michael Ellis: I am grateful for that elucidation, Mr Speaker. The Royal Albert Hall and the Charity Commission have been working to try to resolve the matter that the hon. Lady refers to without recourse to litigation, and I am awaiting the outcome of that process. I have instructed my officials to continue to engage with the parties that the hon. Lady refers to, to assist them in working through the complex issues raised by this case. I will say, however, that no decision has been taken on whether to consent to the referral to the Charity Commission. I will approach the matter as a neutral umpire, commensurate with my role as Attorney General and as parens patriae.

Criminal Justice System Recovery: Covid-19

Simon Baynes: What steps his Department is taking to support the recovery of the criminal justice system as covid-19 restrictions are eased.

Caroline Ansell: What steps his Department is taking to support the recovery of the criminal justice system as covid-19 restrictions are eased.

Michael Ellis: I frequently meet criminal justice partners to discuss this important issue. The covid-19 outbreak has been felt keenly by the criminal justice system. Recovery is a priority for this Government. I have been proud of the resilience that criminal justice agencies have shown. There is still more to do, but both the CPS and the Serious Fraud Office have been commended for their efforts at this difficult time. I thank them for continuing to support the delivery of justice.

Simon Baynes: I thank the police, Wrexham and Denbighshire councils and other authorities in Clwyd South, who have done a great job during the difficult days of the pandemic. How can my right hon. and learned Friend reassure my constituents of efforts to continue to deliver justice in Clwyd South, despite the pandemic?

Michael Ellis: I thank my hon. Friend for his generous question. I am proud that all criminal justice agencies have worked closely together since the covid-19 outbreak to ensure that essential justice services continue to be delivered. The CPS and the court service in north Wales have worked closely together throughout the pandemic to ensure that courts can be run safely and to maximise the flow of cases, while preserving public health. For example, domestic abuse cases in particular have been prioritised in the magistrates courts, so there are no delays or backlogs for those sensitive cases, where victims deserve our protection and support, but that goes in Clwyd South and it goes everywhere.

Caroline Ansell: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his answer. In Sussex, we have a backlog of over 800 Crown court cases—one case is now approaching four years without coming to court—and a rising drop-out rate. The Nightingale court in Chichester is making a real difference, but we still need greater capacity and pace. Can he assure me that every avenue is being pursued to address this backlog, so that we can ensure justice for victims in Eastbourne and in Sussex?

Michael Ellis: Yes, indeed. CPS South East in her region is working with all criminal justice partners to support the recovery activity within Sussex, including to ensure court capacity can be maximised and file quality improved—of course, the better the file quality, the speedier proceedings can follow. The latest levels of cases that I have seen flowing through the courts indicate that in recent weeks at least, outstanding case load in the Crown court has begun to reduce. However, there is still more to be done, and I should say at this point that there is no limit on the number of days that Crown courts can sit for the next fiscal year. That will enable Crown court judges to hold as many hearings as they safely can and as is physically possible, as we continue to recover from the pandemic.

Ellie Reeves: As we come out of the pandemic, to restore confidence in the criminal justice system, the public need to know that the law will apply equally to everyone, irrespective of rank, job or title. It is clear from the footage of the former Health Secretary and his aide that the law on indoor gatherings was breached. This very same law prevented Her Majesty the Queen from sitting with her family at the funeral of her husband, the Duke of Edinburgh. Does the Attorney General agree that by failing to investigate the former Health Secretary’s breach, this Government are sending the message that there is one rule for Government Ministers and their advisers, and another for everyone else?

Michael Ellis: The hon. Lady will know that we do not discuss individual cases, putative or otherwise. The reality of the matter is that, as she will recognise, everyone is equal under the law in our system. That has always been the case and remains the case. We have an extremely pressing CPS case load, and a court system  that is working very hard to bring justice to all, and that includes victims of serious crime, so I do not recognise the problem she raises. We have a system in this country in which everyone is treated equally, and it is a matter entirely for the independent authorities to investigate each and every case as they see fit, not for Government Ministers.

Angela Crawley: With a record 60,000 cases in the backlog of Crown court cases, past UK Government austerity is closing legal aid centres and now covid is impacting significantly on access to justice. Does the Attorney General agree that the justice system is vital to keeping cases moving through the justice system, and what does he plan to do to ensure that access to legal aid is available for everyone across the UK?

Michael Ellis: The hon. Member is right to raise this point. Of course, access to legal aid is very important in the administration of justice, and this Government have maintained funding for that purpose. She is also right to focus on the impact of the pandemic on the system. As I have already indicated, financial matters are being dealt with very generously by the Treasury and the Ministry of Justice. This Government have spent over a quarter of a billion pounds on recovery, as she may know, that has helped to make court buildings safe, including by rolling out new technology for virtual hearings, which of course is less expensive and less time-consuming. There is recruitment of additional staff, and there are Nightingale courts. Whether it be at one end of the criminal justice system or the other, this Government are funding the process so as to ensure speedy, safe and equal justice for all.

Bob Neill: The Attorney General rightly referred to the work of the various justice agencies in this regard. The Director of Public Prosecutions gave powerful evidence to the Justice Committee on 15 June about the pressures that the backlog places on the Crown Prosecution Service. Every case that goes to court has to be worked on by CPS staff, and he is concerned that there is a real risk, in his word, of “fatigue” with case levels running at 50% above pre-covid levels. Can we make sure we have a whole-system approach of sustained investment in the Crown Prosecution Service and the rest of the prosecution service so that staff can cope with the demands of getting back on track and having cases brought forward timeously?

Michael Ellis: I thank my learned friend for his question, and he is right to make this point about the wellbeing of staff in the criminal justice system and, having had Max Hill before his Committee, in the CPS in particular. My hon. Friend will know that Her Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate’s reports have praised the Crown Prosecution Service and its focus on the wellbeing of staff during this period, because they have continued to deliver essential public service. In spite of the pandemic, staff have continued to attend courts, where necessary, to enable them to fulfil their public duty. I should say that the evidence his Committee has heard is correct: the total live CPS post-charge case load is 51% higher than pre-covid, which equates to 52,000 additional cases. In the magistrates court, there is an estimated increase of 3,800 cases that will require a trial listing, and there is an increase of 11,700—70%—in  the Crown courts. So he is right to think about the wellbeing of staff and the fatigue that they are naturally enduring during this time.

Virendra Sharma: Many of my constituents who are small business owners and self-employed are struggling with unpaid invoices and bills for work and services provided, and are threatened with losing their homes. They are not eligible for national support schemes and need to rely on courts to recover their lost money. What will the Minister do to help them get justice as quickly as possible?

Michael Ellis: The Government are very conscious of the pressure that businesses of all sizes—small, medium and large—have been put under by the pandemic. The hon. Gentleman is right to focus on small businesses, because losses occasioned by the pandemic and its exigencies put considerable pressure on small businesses in particular. Where they have to recover debts owed to them through the courts, the courts will process those matters, but there are prioritisations within the system. The hon. Gentleman can be assured that, to my knowledge, the Ministry of Justice is working hard to support the court process, so that all matters can be dealt with as expeditiously as possible.

Serious Fraud Office: Economic Crime

Kevin Hollinrake: What recent assessment he has made of the Serious Fraud Office’s effectiveness in prosecuting serious economic crime.

Lucy Frazer: I recognise the significant work that my hon. Friend has done to protect victims in this area, both as a constituency MP and in his role on the all-party groups on fair business banking and for whistleblowing. In the past 12 months the Serious Fraud Office had brought a number of individuals and corporations to justice, including successful prosecutions in its Unaoil case, uncovering $17 million in bribes. A conviction against GPT resulted in £30 million of confiscations, fines and costs, and deferred prosecution agreements with G4S and Airline Services Limited have resulted in more than £47 million in penalties and costs.

Kevin Hollinrake: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for her answer. The GPT case she refers to was one of the SFO’s rare successes in court in a proven case of corruption. I think there were £28 million of penalties, although it may be £30 million, as she said, including costs. My constituent, Ian Foxley, was a key whistleblower in that case, but he has been completely hung out to dry by the SFO, and has had 10 years without any financial compensation—10 years of lost income. What effect does the Minister think that will have on future whistleblowers, and the likelihood that they will come forward with key evidence? Will she meet me and my constituent to discuss the matter and see what can be done?

Lucy Frazer: I reassure my hon. Friend that the SFO recognises the importance of whistleblowers to its work, and if appropriate I would be happy to meet him to discuss the case and perhaps the issue more broadly. In that particular case the judge concluded that  it was not suitable to make a compensation order, and that is why the SFO concluded that it would not be appropriate to put Mr Foxley’s victim impact statement before the court. I hope to discuss those issues more fully with my hon. Friend.

End-to-End Rape Review

Kerry McCarthy: What steps he is taking to implement the end-to-end rape review's recommendations for the CPS.

Michael Ellis: I recognise the need to restore the faith of victims of these horrific cases. The recently published rape review outlines the Government’s ambition to ensure that justice is served and more cases progress through the system. The CPS is fully committed to delivering actions under the rape review, and those will result in improved joint working between police and prosecutors, to build stronger cases earlier and with less intrusion into victims’ private lives.

Kerry McCarthy: The review includes setting the CPS targets of getting rape prosecutions up to 2016 levels. Labour has said that the Government should return to those levels by next year, not by the end of the next Parliament—something the Lord Chancellor said was “constitutionally illiterate.” Will the Attorney General confirm whether the Government intend to stick to those targets, or have they already U-turned on that?

Michael Ellis: The matter to which the hon. Lady refers is for the Ministry of Justice, but she is right to raise it because cases involving rape and serious sexual offences are some of the most challenging and complicated cases—I emphasise that—with which the CPS deals. That is why only prosecutors with specialist training manage these incredibly sensitive, time-consuming and complex cases. The CPS is committed to ensuring that specialist prosecutors are equipped to deal with the complexities and sensitivities of those types of case.
For example, in May, the CPS published revised rape legal guidance, following public consultation, including new content on challenging rape myths and stereotypes, and a trauma-informed approach. The reason I raise that is that speed is important, yes, but it is also right that the complexities and sensitivities of those cases are handled by highly trained and professional CPS lawyers. That is what is happening.

Ellie Reeves: The Government’s end-to-end rape review has been a missed opportunity to address the systemic failures in our criminal justice system. In the Attorney General’s own words, rape victims “are being failed” by this Government. After a two-year wait, the review offers only piecemeal pilots, tinkering around the edges and next to no new funding. When the dire rape conviction statistics were raised with the Prime Minister last week in the House, he dismissed that as “jabber”—a disgraceful response. Will the Attorney General apologise on behalf of the Prime Minister?

Michael Ellis: The hon. Lady is mischaracterising what was said last week. The cross-Government rape review was published on 18 June. It has produced key actions: an initial ambition to return volumes of cases  progressing through the system to pre-2016 levels by the end of this Parliament; an ambition to ensure that no victim is left without access to a mobile phone for more than 24 hours; the launching of pathfinder projects to test innovative ways for the police and the CPS to approach rape cases—so much has been included in the rape review.
I very much accept, as I said in the rape review’s opening paragraphs, that a great deal needs to be done and that we are not happy with where the process has been. A great deal of work is going into that, however, and increased support for victims throughout the criminal  justice system is important. That is happening, including through increased provisions, for example, with ISVAs—independent sexual violence advisers.

Lindsay Hoyle: I am disappointed by the number of questions we have got through today. In future, I hope, we might be able to get through quite a few more. I will now suspend the House for three minutes to enable the necessary arrangements to be made for the next business.
Sitting suspended.

Business of the House

Thangam Debbonaire: Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The business for the week commencing 5 July will include:
Monday 5 July—Remaining stages of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill.
Tuesday 6 July—Second Reading of the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill.
Wednesday 7 July—Opposition day (4th allotted day). There will be a debate on a motion in the name of the Scottish National party, subject to be announced.
Thursday 8 July—General debate on fuel poverty, followed by debate on a motion relating to the implementation of the recommendations of the independent medicines and medical devices safety review. The subject for this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 9 July—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 12 July will include:
Monday 12 July—Second Reading of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill.
Tuesday 13 July—Remaining stages of the Armed Forces Bill, followed by a motion relating to the appointment of the Chairman of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority.
Wednesday 14 July—Second Reading of a Bill.
Thursday 15 July—Debate on a motion relating to the Northern Ireland protocol, followed by debate on a motion relating to the Peking winter Olympics and Chinese Government sanctions. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 16 July—The House will not be sitting.

Thangam Debbonaire: I thank the Leader of the House for the business, and we can discuss later the apparent absence so far of a motion to change rules about recall.
Mr Speaker:
“It’s extraordinary. I don’t understand.”
And:
“I think the social distancing rules are very important and people should follow them.”
Those words were spoken last year by the now former Health Secretary, when a scientist admitted to meeting his girlfriend indoors, breaking covid rules, and now we know that the former Health Secretary broke the same rules. He also flouted rules on procurement, handing out contracts to dodgy mates; he let down staff and residents of care homes with his not-really-a-ring-of-protection around them; and much more. For instance, what sort of Health Secretary hands out contracts for personal protective equipment to his pub landlord, from a pub called—I am not making this up—the Cock Inn? A few weeks ago at business questions, the Leader of the House referred to the former Health Secretary as a “successful genius”. Does the Leader of the House wish to amend that judgment?
This May, the rules were that there should be no indoor social gathering of two or more people from different households. We have all seen the CCTV footage of the former Health Secretary and the former non-executive director of his former Department—that is not a work meeting. However, does the Leader of the House know where Government cameras are in Departments? Is there a list? If not the Government, who put the cameras there, and how?
On “The Moggcast” this week, the Leader of the House said that
“if a man were to appoint his wife to be a non-executive director you would hope that the Cabinet Office knew that the lady was married to the man”.
He clearly agrees that it matters who a Secretary of State appoints to check his or her work, so will there be a review of the appointment process, and will the Government publish details of the appointment of this specific former non-executive director?
This week, the British people have felt the joy of football victory. Keen followers of business questions will know that football is not my sport, but even I witnessed both the goals and the joy. I am a great fan of joy, and may there be more joy on Saturday. However, in light of the concerns about covid outbreaks associated with Euro matches, what reassurance will the Government give about protection for the remaining matches, and does the Leader of the House understand the bemusement of amateur choirs, which are still not allowed to sing indoors, when they see football fans cheering indoors? Can he explain why VIPs and business execs are exempt from travel restrictions when others, who are very ill, cannot even get a response to an application to isolate at home, instead of in a hotel, on medical grounds? It is rules for all of us, and no rules for Government and their mates.
A year ago, the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work said that the review of the six-month rule for terminally ill people would be published “shortly”. Last week, the Leader of the House said that it would be published “soon”. On Monday, the Minister said that it would be published “very soon”, and then said the same about the disability strategy promised two years ago. Yesterday, the Prime Minister gave a “soon” about the Online Safety Bill. Will the Leader of the House tell us how long is “soon”?
Thanks to months of campaigning by steelworkers, their trade unions and MPs, yesterday the Government finally acted to protect steel jobs, but just saying “soon” does not help people who are worried about their jobs and livelihoods. Will the Government learn that lesson?
When Ministers break rules, the Prime Minister rewards them instead of sacking them. When the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government helped out a Tory donor mate, the Prime Minister did not sack him. When the Home Secretary was found to have bullied her own staff, he did not sack her. When the Education Secretary messed up, well, pretty much everything, he did not sack him, and that saga continues, owing to children missing months of school and a catch-up plan that does not catch them up.
And no, this is not just Westminster bubble stuff. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday, it hurts people. They feel betrayed. People dutifully watched No. 10 press conferences to check rules, and in following rules, people struggled,  some lost jobs, some could not hold the hand of a parent at the end of life or be at their funeral, but they stuck to the rules, even when that really hurt. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister cannot get his Ministers to stick to any rules. What consequences does the Leader of the House think there should be for Ministers breaking rules?
People hate hypocrisy. They know it when they see it, and they have seen it again this week: the man who set the covid rules breaking the covid rules, and the Prime Minister just waving his hands in the air. The Leader of the House will say, “There’s a new Health Secretary and the vaccine roll-out is great.” Yes, we are eternally grateful to scientists and the NHS for the vaccine—we are all queuing up—but that does not change Government rule breaking and why this matters. When will the Government stop breaking their own rules? It really is one set of rules for the people, and for the Government and their mates, it is no rules for them.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I think the hon. Lady’s fox was shot some time ago, because my right hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock) is the former Health Secretary, and the word “former” is quite an important one. We have had references to association football, and my right hon. Friend has been replaced by the super-sub—the Jack Grealish of politics—in the form of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), the new Secretary of State, who has come on with great effect and great panache.
The hon. Lady challenges me on what I said about the great genius of the former Secretary of State. I stick by that because he worked incredibly hard for 15 months. If I may resort to Dryden once again, the hon. Lady will know:
“Great wits are sure to madness near allied,
And thin partitions do their bounds divide.”
Unfortunately, my right hon. Friend made a grave mistake, for which, because the rules are enforced fairly, he resigned. He resigned the day after the story was printed in the newspapers. Here we get the splitting of hairs between the resignation and the sacking. The man has gone. He has lost his job, as has the non-executive director in the Department of Health and Social Care with whom he seems to be closely associated. That is quite the right way for it to have happened. My right hon. Friend is no longer in office.
The hon. Lady complains about procurement, but that is not what the Opposition were saying a year ago, when they specifically asked the Government whether we would
“now commit to provide local public health services and Public Health England with ‘whatever it needs’ to build up the test, trace and isolate regime so obviously needed”.
The Opposition made a strong demand that that should take place very quickly. Of course, it was done quickly. What did the Opposition do? They very helpfully set out 10 proposals for the Government, and No. 3 was:
“Test, test, test. For testing to be effective, Government should provide capacity for widespread, regular community testing. Everyone showing symptoms should be able to access a test within 24 hours.”
On and on they went, asking the Government to do exactly what the Government were doing, but now, a year later, they complain that we did it quickly. What  did they want? Did they want us to do it with torpor, inactivity and idleness? Well, we would not have got very far with it if we had. Last year they said we should do whatever it takes, but this year they say that doing whatever it takes was wrong. There is a word for that, Mr Speaker, but it is not parliamentary, so I will not use it. It was quite right of the Opposition to ask for what they did a year ago. It was right for the Government to do it and it had to be done at speed.
I am delighted that the hon. Lady wants to spread joy. As we all know, joy cometh in the morning and this morning is a morning of joy for us all. She asks about remaining matches. Now, I do not know the specific plans for football, but I can inform the House about the plans for anyone intending to go to the match between England and Pakistan at Lord’s, a one-day match on 10 July, which I will be going to. I got the circular from the MCC—the Marylebone Cricket Club—yesterday. One will be required to show either that one has been double vaccinated within a fortnight or that one has had a recent test, so there are procedures in place. This is one of the test events—it is actually a one-day match, not a Test, Mr Speaker, but you get the point—where things will be carefully kept in order to ensure the safety of people going there.
The hon. Lady thanks the Government for bringing forward the duties for the steelworkers. I am grateful for her thanks and support for the robust action the Government have taken. That is being done quite properly in the right way to ensure that the steel industry is protected where it needs to be.
Then we get into an obscure argument about the Westminster bubble. It is unquestionably true that there are some issues which this House is beset by. I think that deciding how many angels dance on the pinhead of a resignation or a sacking is one of those and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was right to say so yesterday.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: Good morning, Mr Speaker. Two weeks ago, my right hon. Friend promised to chase up local government Ministers for failing to answer my questions about the consultation in Somerset. I know he has chased them and I do thank him enormously for that, but I am beginning to understand why the Ministry and the Government kept this a secret. The results of the survey attracted only 5,000 responses—a pathetic 1% of the Somerset population—but 111,000 people cast their votes in the referendum organised by the district councils and a huge majority voted in favour of the two unitaries. This referendum cannot be ignored by Ministers because of democracy and legality. They will damage themselves if they do. This deserves a debate in Government time to be able to talk about the land of King Arthur and what a marvellous honourable people they are.

Lindsay Hoyle: Let’s be on the level on this one then.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Ah, Mr Speaker, your puns are getting almost as bad as mine.
What I would say to my hon. Friend is that he is tempting me in the right direction to have a debate on the great advantages of the county of Somerset and the fact that Alfred’s coming out of the Levels and defeating Guthrum is the foundation not only of England, but actually the United States and Australia. All that flows  from that comes from Alfred defeating the Danes, otherwise it would have been a different kettle of fish. So I sympathise with his desire for a debate, but I think the specific issue is more suited to an Adjournment debate. The Government will of course take into account the responses that have come in to the discussion on how the county of Somerset should be administered, but what I would say is of fundamental importance is that actually bureaucratic boundaries are not what people in Somerset mind about. They care about their whole historic united county. That is what matters to my constituents and to his, and bureaucratic boundaries are comparatively trifling.

Pete Wishart: I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business for next week. I suppose the first thing to do is to acknowledge this week’s sporting success: I am sure the whole House will want to congratulate Andy Murray on his stunning progress to the third round at Wimbledon. And apparently there was some football game on, too. Now that we are getting rid of EVEL, English votes for English laws, how about we get ESEV, English sport for English viewers, so that Scottish viewers of the BBC do not have to endlessly watch that Gazza goal scored against us and are spared the endless references to 1966 when we are watching Croatia or Denmark?
May we have a debate about ministerial resignations? After the departure of the Health Secretary, the public just do not know what it takes to get the sack anymore. This was a Health Secretary whose tenure was littered with unlimited disastrous policy decisions and riddled with cronyism, overseeing the largest death rate in Europe. But it was not that that brought him down; it was issues around having an affair. Does the Leader of the House not think that that is akin to Al Capone going down for tax evasion?
Today marks the beginning of the end of furlough, and there is no statement from the Chancellor. That will add thousands of pounds of costs to businesses across the country and the Institute for Fiscal Studies has warned that it will lead to lay-offs and redundancies, so why no statement? We also need an urgent update on the settlement scheme, given that the Home Office is unable to cope with the outstanding backlog and that there is ongoing confusion and chaos. Sometimes, it seems the Government are more interested in sausages than people.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Well, haggis to that, I think. When the hon. Gentleman complains about references to 1966, I would say “pots and kettles”, because we often hear from the SNP about 1314. I think 1966 is a little more recent history than 1314.
On the furlough scheme, this was well announced and well planned, and we are getting back to normal. The date of 19 July is a terminus and, to carry on the railway comparison, we are on track. It is therefore right that businesses begin to get back to normal. Bear in mind that £407 billion of taxpayers’ money has been spent supporting the economy. Fourteen million jobs and people have been protected through the furlough and self-employed schemes at a cost of £88.5 billion. There is not unlimited money and it is right that the scheme is withdrawn at the point at which the pandemic’s emergency provisions are drawing to a close.
As regards the settlement scheme, I think that through the scheme 5.3 million or so EU member state nationals have been dealt with, out of 5.6 million applications so far. A generous deadline was set and it has been handled extraordinarily well and efficiently by the Home Office. Officials there deserve considerable gratitude from the nation for handling it so smoothly considering the very much higher number of eligible people than the Office for National Statistics thought were in the country.

Fiona Bruce: We recently celebrated UK National Marriage Week. As we come out of lockdown and welcome back larger weddings, may we have a debate about marriage, recognising that we do not want to price people out of marriage? That is not least because this week the Centre for Social Justice pointed out that those born into well-off families have a 96% chance of having two parents but, in our poorest communities, the figure is 28% and falling. While we all agree that single parents deserve all the help they can get and that so many do a great job, does the Leader of the House agree that if we as politicians are serious about levelling up, we should not hold back from also supporting marriage and the stability that it provides to give children a positive start in life?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question and for the excellent work of the Centre for Social Justice, founded, of course, by our right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). Its findings are important and clear. My hon. Friend is right to be supportive of marriage, and it may not surprise her to hear that I am very supportive of marriage. It is a foundation stone of our society and has been for millenniums. It is fundamental.
I think the issue here is tonal as much as anything. The Government and politicians should support, encourage and foster marriage, but they must not be harsh on those who are not married. My hon. Friend is absolutely right in her tone to say, “Yes, we need to support people who are single parents but recognise the great benefits to children of being within a couple and a family.”

Ian Mearns: I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the Backbench Business Committee debates for 8 and 15 July. On 15 July, as has been said, the Committee proposes debates on the Northern Ireland protocol and on the Beijing winter Olympics and the Chinese Government.
The levels of demand at the Backbench Business Committee remain high, but, alas, we do not have further time to allocate that we know of before the summer recess. We have pre-allocated all potential slots in Westminster Hall, and we have already pre-allocated subjects for debate on Thursday 22 July, should we be allocated that time.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: We do our best to facilitate the Backbench Business Committee by announcing time, and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is grateful for the time that has been made available.

Scott Benton: Recently, I joined my local police for a series of visits around Blackpool. I was travelling in a car with PC Jeff Blincow and Sergeant Helen McLaren when we spotted a man carrying a foot-long machete and repeatedly punching a young woman. Without hesitation, the officers got  out of the car. After a short chase and the use of PAVA spray, they were able to get the man to the ground and arrest him. The bravery and professionalism of the officers was second to none, and they deserve immense respect and admiration for their actions. Had they not acted so quickly we could have seen a serious incident, with the loss of life. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking Jeff and Helen, and indeed all police officers, for the brilliant job they do, day in, day out, in protecting our communities. Does he think it would be in order to have a debate in this House to recognise the work of our serving police officers?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: May I begin by wishing my hon. Friend a very happy birthday? I hope he will have a suitably covid-secure celebration later on today. What he has raised in this House is of fundamental importance. We are so lucky to have the police who serve us in this country. We know that in this House by the police who are here on duty to protect us, not knowing what risks they may face. Therefore, I do thank PC Jeff Blincow and Sergeant Helen McLaren, and commend them for their bravery, and I am glad to be able to bring to the attention of the House the fact that what they clearly did on that day is a model of good policing. We are improving the police and increasing their number, so that there will be more of them to do this work. There will be 20,000 extra police officers over the course of this Parliament, of whom 8,771 have so far been recruited, because police on the streets make us feel safer. As regards a debate, my hon. Friend may wish to raise this matter again during the Report stage of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill on Monday, so there is an opportunity immediately to hand.

Navendu Mishra: Several of my constituents have had a frustrating experience when trying to book a driving test at the Stockport test centre. Sadly, this experience is replicated across Greater Manchester and England as a result of processing delays at the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. Will the Leader of the House urge his colleague the Transport Secretary to come before this House to make a statement and explain why Ministers chose to block a deal that would have brought an end to the industrial dispute with the Public and Commercial Services Union at the DVLA over health and safety? Is this not another case of this Government putting ideology ahead of the needs of the public?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Obviously, there is a regrettable backlog in tests because of the pandemic. That is being worked through. The number of tests being done at test centres is increasing. The number of tests being done by driving testers has gone up by an extra one a day, as I understand it, to try to work through this backlog. It will take time and this is, of course, unfortunate, but there are consequences of the pandemic, as the hon. Gentleman knows.

James Daly: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the undeniable failure of the pubs code to stop unfair business practices that are continuing against tied tenants in public houses throughout the country? A clear example of this is the experience of Christian and Samantha Gibbs, the current  tenants of The Major in Ramsbottom. Despite not owing a penny to their landlord, Stonegate, and running a fantastic community pub, they have been given notice that their tenancy will be brought to an end. In my view, that is a clear breach of the fairness principle in the pubs code.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing this to the attention of the House. We want to support pubs across the country. As he knows, the pubs code is overseen by the Pubs Code Adjudicator, which is itself overseen by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. The code was put in place to help support tenant pub landlords, and I urge him to raise this matter with the adjudicator if he believes, as he does, that the code has been broken by his constituents’ landlord. The Government published their report on the first statutory review of the pubs code in November last year, which found that the code is consistent with the principles set out in the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015. The review also set out changes that the Government believe can be made to improve the operation of the code. I encourage landlords to behave well towards their tenants; that is how they make their profit and earn their living, and reward their shareholders, which they have a fiduciary duty to do.

Gavin Newlands: Under the Government’s previous green deal scheme, more than 3,000 Home Energy and Lifestyle Management Systems customers in Scotland were mis-sold home improvement works, which were often unnecessary and always financially detrimental to the household. I have received assurances from various Ministers and Secretaries of State—who accepted that HELMS defrauded thousands—that it would be sorted. We now have households that have issues with these works, but as the six-year mark since HELMS directors dissolved the company has passed, there is no recourse for those constituents. Can we please have a debate on this important issue?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise an important and complex constituency issue. I am sorry that he has not received the information that he had hoped to. I will, of course, take this matter up with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy on his behalf.

Bob Blackman: Our national health service has been under incredible pressure over the last 18 months, as we all know, and now it has a new Health Secretary. In April, the Care Quality Commission conducted an inquiry into and review of Northwick Park Hospital, which serves my constituents. The A&E department was given a glowing report and has shown dramatic improvement, which is good news for everyone. However, the same cannot be said of the maternity service. This is a very bad report indeed. I cannot go into detail at the moment, but clearly the CQC has published this, so could we have a statement to the House from the Health Secretary or a Minister on what extra support will be provided to Northwick Park Hospital so that the maternity unit is returned to the service that should be provided, and expectant mothers will receive the help and care they need to deliver healthy babies?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: This is a deeply troubling matter. The House will know that there have been similar problems; the scandal at Telford and Shrewsbury particularly comes to mind. For the women, children and families affected, this is a terrible situation. I assure my hon. Friend that NHS England and NHS Improvement are spending an additional £95 million on maternity services to support the recruitment of 1,200 midwives, 100 consultant obstetricians and implementation of the immediate and essential actions arising from the Ockenden report. I will pass on my hon. Friend’s remarks to my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary and ensure that the matter is taken with the seriousness that it unquestionably deserves-.

Tim Farron: The Leader of the House will be proud, as I am, of the high animal welfare and environmental standards of British farmers. The Australian trade deal looks likely to betray those farmers by allowing lower standard Australian farm produce to undercut them. Given that this deal will set a precedent for every subsequent trade deal, will he allow time for MPs to debate it, as was done with the Japan deal last November, when his right hon. Friend the International Trade Secretary said that that was the “first of many debates” about negotiated trade deals? Will he keep faith with British farmers and keep the promise made by his right hon. Friend?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I have more confidence in my farmers; I think they can compete with the best in the world. The Australians are fantastic farmers who have high standards of animal welfare. We should not be so frightened, nervy and feeble in feeling that a bit of competition from Australia will do us harm. It will do us all good, and our farmers will flourish and prosper as they get access to new markets too.

Alexander Stafford: I need not remind anyone in this House about the scale and horror of the child sexual exploitation scandal that blighted Rotherham and affected many of my constituents, including courageous whistleblower and campaigner Sammy Woodhouse. That these children—because that is what many of them were when the abuse took place—were failed so monumentally by the system in the first place is horrific, but living as a survivor of sexual exploitation or any form of sexual assault is fraught with many issues, particularly for those girls and women who became pregnant as a result of their ordeal and are now trying to raise a family.
The children born to survivors of sexual assault should not, as currently happens, be automatically identified as being at risk of abuse, and their mothers, many of whom have been failed once already, should not be threatened with the removal of their children on the basis of no other evidence than that they themselves were once victims. Does the Leader of the House agree that these women and their children should be better supported by social services, and can we have a debate in Government time on the disturbing findings of “The Case for Change” report, published by the chair of the independent review of children’s social care, so that we may right this historic wrong, which is still victimising survivors of child sexual exploitation and sexual assault today?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: What my hon. Friend brings to the House is really rather shocking. It should certainly not be the case that women who have themselves been abused should be deemed as being at risk of being abusers purely because they were abused. That is wrong, unfair and unjust and I am troubled that he should say that that is the case. I will take this up on his behalf with the Home Secretary and the Education Secretary, because the abuse scandal in Rotherham is one that has left many scars and troubles for families and for individuals who were abused, and they should not be suffering further. They should be getting the support that my hon. Friend talks about.

Kevin Brennan: Can we have a debate about ministerial bad habits? When I was a Government Minister, it was unthinkable that we would have conducted Government business on private email accounts and absolutely unthinkable that, as a Minister, I could have held 27 meetings with companies that were seeking Government contracts, resulting in £1 billion-worth of contracts being awarded, and that those meetings could have mysteriously disappeared from my diary for a whole 12 months. The Leader of the House likes quoting Dryden. I remind him that Dryden said, “We first make our habits, and then our habits make us.” These bad habits of Ministers in Government will lead to a Government of grifters, cronies and chisellers, and they have to stop.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am not sure that email was invented when the hon. Gentleman was last a Minister, but perhaps it had come into its early stages. It is absolutely right that Ministers had meetings with people who were going to provide personal protective equipment. I refer him to what I said to the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire). It needed to be done urgently, the Opposition were encouraging us to do it urgently, and it was done urgently and effectively to ensure that supplies were brought in.

Sir David Amess: I join you, Mr Speaker, and others in wishing Mr Ian Davis MBE a long, happy retirement. He has been a magnificent servant of this House and has great musical talents. My goodness, if he ever wrote a book, it would be well worth buying and would be a top seller.
Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on proposals to allow the parents and guardians of disabled children access to their savings? Some 200,000 disabled children are locked out of the savings from children’s trust funds, and it is quite wrong that those parents have to go to court and spend a great deal of money to get those savings.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I absolutely agree about Ian Davis. He has been a fabulous servant of this House and a kindly and helpful figure to Members—particularly new Members when trying to find out how to approach the Speaker to ask to be noticed in a debate and so on—with a phenomenal knowledge of who the Members are, recognising all of us from a remarkably early stage in our parliamentary careers. He has been a model public servant, as you, Mr Speaker, set out yesterday, in both his military career and his service to this House, and he will be greatly missed across the House.
As regards the very important issue that my hon. Friend raises, I understand that the Ministry of Justice and HM Treasury are currently working together, as a matter of priority, to ensure that parents and guardians can secure the legal authority that they need to act on their child’s behalf as straightforwardly as possible. The Government have announced that those who need to apply to the Court of Protection to access funds in a mature child trust fund can access fee remission, allowing for the court fees to be waived, but I will pass on his concerns to both the Chancellors: the Lord High Chancellor and the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Chris Elmore: On 27 May, in response to the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme decision on suspending Members not being subject to a recall petition, the Leader of the House said that he would deal with the discrepancy in
“the most straightforward way possible”.—[Official Report, 27 May 2021; Vol. 696, c. 564.]
Will he provide a separate statement to the House about how he intends to resolve this issue? He will recall that, on 27 May, I praised him for his honesty about what should happen in these cases. I agree with him that it is frankly ridiculous that Members can technically be suspended and subject to recall for the misuse of stationery but not when sexual misconduct has been proven. I ask the Leader—I plead with him—to close the loophole and solve the problem as quickly as possible, because it is not fair to victims who make complaints when Members who are found to have conducted themselves completely improperly as Members can simply carry on regardless. It is not acceptable.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I fully recognise the widespread view across the House on this issue. I assure the hon. Gentleman that consultations are taking place—earlier this week I spoke to staff representatives—because the reason for not engaging recall was a bottom-up view, not a top-down view. It is really important that any changes are made with the support of the staff, which I believe is now there. It is a matter for the Commission rather than for the Leader of the House, but I will facilitate bringing forward the necessary motions required to put things into practice. There is also discussion with the chairman of the independent expert panel, Sir Stephen Irwin, about how best to do things. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the wheels are in motion and there is great support across the House and, indeed, from the shadow Leader of the House, with whom I have a meeting later today, to ensure that things are done in a timely manner.

James Sunderland: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for his excellent response on schools last week, but may I please press him a bit further? Parents in Bracknell and beyond are telling me that entire classes and year groups are still being isolated because of one positive covid test; that extracurricular activities are being banned, not least for year 6 leavers; and that parents cannot attend sports days, even when they would otherwise be outside and distanced. Headteachers will be beholden to the unions for as long as they are permitted to use their judgment. Something has gone very badly wrong. Does the Leader of the  House feel, as I do, that the only way to get children back to school and living normal lives is for the Government to mandate it?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am, obviously, torn on this matter, because I believe in local decision making. I believe that headmasters and headmistresses throughout the country can show leadership. Some sports days are going ahead. I will be going, on 7 July, to the Hill House School field day, which is going to be arranged in a covid-secure manner. I encourage the leadership of schools to work with the regulations in a way that is allowed and that means things can happen. It is sometimes easier, administratively, to stop things and say no than it is to look at how to be positive and allow things to happen. I reiterate the point that I made last week: while in some cases a whole class may be required to isolate, many settings use seating plans and other means to identify close contacts in order to minimise the number of individuals who need to isolate. Yes, we should push from the top, but there should also be a response locally, from individual schools, to try to ensure that children get to school as often as is possible.

Chris Stephens: Campaigners such as Ailsa MacKenzie gave evidence to the Work and Pensions Committee two years ago and secured a commitment from the Department for Work and Pensions to place a remedial order to extend eligibility for widowed parent’s allowance and bereavement support payments to cohabitees with children. Given that 60 days—not including recess—are required to consider the proposal, will the Leader of the House liaise with the DWP to ensure that the remedial order is put in place as soon as possible, so that people such as Ailsa MacKenzie and their relatives and family get this state support?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point and is so right to be defending his constituents. Yes, I will take this matter up with the DWP and try to facilitate what he asks for.

Caroline Ansell: Last week, I was at the excellent West Rise Junior School with Ms Somerville and year 6. They are super-motivated in their work on the environment, and I committed then to step up to the challenge of plastic-free July. Will my right hon. Friend publicise this initiative throughout the House, perhaps join me himself and, more importantly, allow time for a debate so that we can share our collective experience to understand what the barriers are to success in this initiative? We all know that making small changes can make a huge difference to our carbon footprint.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to campaign in this way. We all have our own private responsibility to reduce the amount of plastic that we use. I am not sure that I can guarantee a plastic-free July, because I might want a glass of water at the Dispatch Box and we have plastic cups here rather than glasses, but I must confess that my hon. Friend is pushing with my own personal preference. I have never liked those cups of coffee in disposable cups, which I think have a rather nasty taste; having it in china cups—preferably Spode china cups—is infinitely preferable. I encourage people to use glass, china and other things that may be used more than once.

Jessica Morden: Today, 750,000 businesses across England have lost their business rates relief, but, in Wales, the Welsh Labour Government have extended rates relief for a year and provided new support for businesses impacted by the pandemic. Can we have an opportunity to impress on Ministers the need to do more, help shops and businesses get back on their feet, and follow the Welsh example?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: As I have mentioned already, £470 billion of taxpayers’ money has been given in support to business, and a 66% business rates cut for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses exists for the next nine months, so there has already been very significant support. The strength of the United Kingdom is that Wales has had £8.6 billion of UK taxpayers’ support, which is supporting more than 360,000 self-employment scheme claims and over 468,000 jobs in the furlough scheme. That is an indication of the strength of the United Kingdom, but the taxpayer has already been leaned on to a very considerable extent, and there is not unlimited money.

Patrick Grady: The Leader of the House was pretty clear at the Procedure Committee on Monday that he has converted—well, he has not converted, as it was always his position, alongside the SNP—to see the back of the EVEL Standing Orders. It seems that they will, nevertheless, be switched on when the Standing Orders for the procedure during the pandemic lapse at the end of term. He will switch them on only to switch them back off again at some point. Rather than that, can we not have a debate and a vote on all the hybrid proceedings before the summer recess so that we can decide what we want to retain and what we want to change?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I have great zeal for ridding this House of EVEL.

Elliot Colburn: The Croydon bottleneck is a major rail junction for the Brighton main line, but also serves suburban London, such as Carshalton and Wallington. Congestion here is causing massive delays and also prevents more frequent rail services from being run to outer London, which the Croydon area remodelling scheme is designed to fix. Can we have a statement from the Department for Transport about Government support for this scheme so that we can deliver additional rail services to Carshalton and Wallington?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Improving track layouts, remodelling the Selhurst triangle and constructing new tracks and two new platforms at East Croydon station would remove the bottleneck, which causes delays and disruption, improving the punctuality and speed of services. As I understand it, Network Rail has consulted on proposals to unblock the Croydon bottleneck and progress is expected later this year. I understand the concern that this must be to my hon. Friend’s constituents as so many of them are likely to be dependent on this service.
Let me say how much I enjoyed visiting my hon. Friend’s constituency recently, going to the Sutton vaccination centre and meeting Wendy, who was the subject of a Commons mention. May I say how surprised I am that he has managed to find something in his  constituency that is not the fault of an incompetent Lib Dem-run administration? I hope that next week he will try harder.

Jim Shannon: In the High Court yesterday, Mr Justice Colton confirmed what the Prime Minister himself had repeatedly denied in this House, which is that the withdrawal Act, which we in the DUP rejected in this House on all three occasions, has repealed article 6 of the Act of Union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We are no longer equal partners in trade. The consequences for Northern Ireland from the Government deal are clearer than ever before. The Northern Ireland protocol has the potential to derail the democratic process. As summer approaches and opinion can potentially become inflamed, this House has a role to play, as the decision has emanated from the Government here. This House can and must change this for the sake of long-lasting peace. Will the Leader of the House agree to a very urgent debate in this House so that Northern Ireland’s position within the United Kingdom can be clearly laid out?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The court judgment was unquestionably an important one, and it is clear that the protocol, as it is currently operating, is presenting significant challenges for the people and businesses of Northern Ireland. We will continue to work through those issues with the EU to try to find a way forward to ensure that the protocol is implemented in the proportionate way intended. That is how we hope to sustain peace and prosperity for everyone in Northern Ireland.
Northern Ireland’s place within the United Kingdom is fundamental. It is just as much a part of the United Kingdom as Somerset is, and there is no court judgment or ruling that could possibly remove part of the United Kingdom from our United Kingdom. We must all do everything we can to support Northern Ireland within our United Kingdom and to ensure that the trade flows that go with it and that underpin the economic success of our United Kingdom work properly.

Felicity Buchan: I have many major businesses headquartered in my constituency, and they have raised concerns about the inability of senior executives to travel to the US at the moment. Certain things often cannot be done by video conference call. For instance, many of them own subsidiaries in the US that they cannot go to manage and oversee, and many have major investors in the US whom they need to meet. May I stress to my right hon. Friend the importance of getting a US-UK travel corridor for business up and running? Would he contemplate a debate on that subject?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: In my business life, I have spent a lot of time going back and forth to the United States for business purposes to see investors, so I completely understand the importance of the issue that my hon. Friend raises. The Prime Minister and President Biden have made it clear that this is important and look forward to bringing about the return of safe transatlantic travel as soon as possible. The newly formed joint UK-US expert working group is now under way, and we are working closely with our US allies on delivering on this important goal. Entry into the United States is, of course, a matter for the United States, but there is a  clear business case for the need to solve this issue as quickly as possible for both the United Kingdom and the United States.

Yasmin Qureshi: I have had emails from constituents who wish to seek exemption from hotel quarantine on the grounds of the serious ill health of themselves or their family members. They have mentioned the difficulty of booking a quarantine hotel, the splitting up of families and the substandard food and accommodation. Further, when I have written to the Department responsible for the exemptions, I have not had the courtesy of a reply. Will the Leader of the House allow time for a debate on this issue in Government time? Will he also pass on my observations to the Secretary of State for Transport and ask him to meet me to discuss this issue, as I am not getting an answer from his Department?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: If Members from either of the House are having problems getting answers from Departments, I will always use my office to try to facilitate an answer as soon as possible. In the cases to which the hon. Lady refers, getting answers urgently is obviously important, and I can give her the assurance that she asks for.

Cherilyn Mackrory: I recently had the pleasure of meeting my constituents Paul and Ruth Fisher, both of whom have played vital roles in our country as key workers. This young couple bought a new-build property from a large, well-known developer in 2019, but soon discovered that the property was substandard, although finished beautifully, with the ceilings not level with the floors and with outside walls also not level. The issues have yet to be resolved.
Sadly, soon after the purchase, Ruth was diagnosed with breast cancer and is currently receiving palliative care. My heartfelt best wishes go out to both of them and to her family. May I ask my right hon. Friend for a debate in Government time to consider situations such as Paul and Ruth’s, paying particular attention to the need for an independent watchdog or ombudsman designed to help others like my constituents to reach a satisfactory settlement with large developers? That simply is not the case at the moment.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this issue. The House’s sympathies will be with Ruth and Paul in these appalling circumstances. It is quite wrong for developers to sell substandard homes. Developers of new-build homes must meet their responsibilities, resolve issues quickly and treat homebuyers fairly when things go wrong. I sympathise with my hon. Friend, because as a constituency MP, one has sometimes found that developers have not been good at responding when there have been complaints, and there has been very little recourse. The building safety Bill will include provision for the new homes ombudsman scheme to provide stronger and effective redress for new-build homebuyers and to hold developers to account. This reform is long overdue, and it will be welcomed across the House.

Clive Efford: I heard the answer that the Leader of the House gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), but we have to have the right checks and balances in place.
The Health Minister Lord Bethell held a series of meetings with companies that went on to win contracts worth over £1 billion, and the week in question was omitted from his diary. That raises questions about the role of civil servants in the letting of these contracts. Where is the monitoring officer for the letting of these contracts, and who signs them off?
We need a statement in this House on the role of the civil service when it comes to such issues so that we can reassure ourselves that civil servants are not being bullied into silence and that they are holding Ministers properly to account and making them abide by the rules. I suspect that the only reason why we know about the meetings is that a civil servant leaked the emails because they knew that wrongdoing was going on.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I think that a fundamentally foolish point. There were 27 meetings, nine of which led to contracts being awarded by my noble Friend Lord Bethell on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government when we were under great pressure to act. That was exactly what the Labour party was asking for. It asked that whatever was necessary should take place—it wanted speed, urgency and decisiveness. That was what the Government delivered. The Government had to get on with awarding contracts to ensure that supplies were in place.
The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. If normal procurement procedures had been followed, it would have taken three to six months to award contracts—we would have been halfway through the pandemic before we had had a single extra piece of PPE. Would he have wanted such incompetent service? Is that what the Labour party would have done? Would it have just fiddled while Rome burned or would it have got on with things, as my noble Friend did?

Siobhan Baillie: I championed town and parish councils long before the great Jackie Weaver made them go viral on t’interweb. But Nailsworth, Stinchcombe, Stonehouse and other councils across the Stroud district were quite dismayed at the removal of the option for virtual proceedings, and I would like to see that reversed. Will my right hon. Friend provide an update about the Government’s work in this area and let us know when Parliament will be looking at this particular issue?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: We are grateful for the efforts that councils made to allow meetings during the period from 4 April 2020 to 6 May 2021, when the emergency regulations made under section 78 of the Coronavirus Act 2020 applied. Extending the regulations to cover meetings after 6 May would have required primary legislation.
The Government carefully considered the case for legislation and concluded that it was not possible to bring forward further emergency legislation on the issue. We launched a call for evidence on 25 March, which closed on 17 June, to gather views and inform a longer-term decision about whether to make express provision for local authorities to meet remotely on a permanent basis. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government is now reviewing the response to the consultation, and the Government will respond in due course.
I would say that we are all welcoming getting back to normal, and I think the whole of society wants to get back to normal as soon as possible.

Tan Dhesi: When the Prime Minister’s chief adviser blatantly broke the rules despite the huge sacrifices made by the British people, the Prime Minister backed him; when the Home Secretary breached the ministerial code, he backed her; when the Housing Secretary was busy awarding planning permissions to Tory donors, he backed him; and when the Health Secretary broke the very rules that he had been passionately preaching to the rest of us, the Prime Minister backed him by saying that he considered the matter closed.
Would the Leader of the House be kind enough to facilitate a debate in Government time on integrity, British values and the ministerial code and to ensure that the Prime Minister attends the whole session, so that he can learn some of the basics?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: We are fortunate in having a brilliant and effective Home Secretary who gets on with her job. We are also fortunate in having an extremely effective Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, who believes in building the houses that people will be able to live in and in ensuring that we are a home-owning democracy. My right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for Health and Social Care is no longer in office—a point that seems to escape Labour Members.

Christian Wakeford: Radcliffe in my constituency is a proud town with a rich heritage and a strong identity that has unfortunately been forgotten for far too long by the Labour council, but this Conservative Government are delivering for the town. They have  given it a brand-new high school, and hopefully the levelling-up fund will also go some way towards providing civic and leisure facilities in the heart of the town. Will my right hon. Friend provide time for a debate on the benefits of the levelling-up fund for forgotten towns like Radcliffe?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The £4.8 billion levelling-up fund will spend taxpayers’ money to improve everyday life across the country, from transport projects to high streets. My hon. Friend does not have long to wait for a decision on the scheme; the decisions will be announced in the autumn. There is so much to do.
Even in our own Parliament, we have to level this place back up. I want to say how marvellously you have done, Mr Speaker, in saving 95% of the cost of doing up the Speaker’s House. People may not know this, but there was a proposal for a very lavish temporary home for the Speaker, and Mr Speaker, as a model defender of taxpayers’ money, has saved 95% of that cost. I hope that other people, when spending taxpayers’ money, will do the same.

Lindsay Hoyle: I am now suspending the House for three minutes for the necessary arrangements to be made for the next business.

Supply and Appropriation (Main Estimates) Bill

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 56), That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Question put forthwith, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Backbench Business

Windrush Day 2021

Helen Hayes: I beg to move,
That this House has considered Windrush Day 2021.
I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time for this debate today. 22 June 2021 was the fourth official annual Windrush Day, designated by the Government as part of the celebrations of the 70th anniversary of the arrival of the Empire Windrush at Tilbury docks in 2018, and following a long campaign led by Patrick Vernon. I wanted to ensure that, to mark Windrush Day, Members from across the House had the opportunity to acknowledge the contribution of the Windrush generation in their communities, and I hope that that is what we will hear in this debate.
Windrush Day is a national day to celebrate the extraordinary and enduring contribution of the Windrush generation to the UK. I am proud to represent a constituency with a very direct connection to the arrival of the Empire Windrush in 1948. About 200 Windrush passengers travelled from the temporary accommodation provided in the Clapham Common deep shelter to Coldharbour Lane in my constituency, where many found work at the local labour exchange and settled in the surrounding area, putting down deep roots and helping to form and sustain the Brixton we know today. They include the late Sam King, who became the first black mayor of Southwark, and Aldwyn Roberts, the grand master of calypso, who performed as Lord Kitchener.
This Windrush Day, I joined members of the community in Brixton for a socially distanced celebratory lunch, and we were delighted that the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), was also able to join us at that occasion. We were privileged to hear a performance of a new song by the wonderful Pegasus Opera Company, “Rush”, which is described as a “Windrush anthem for Lambeth”. It is very moving, and I would encourage everyone to watch the recording on the Pegasus Opera website. The song captures perfectly the eager anticipation, excitement and aspiration of a generation who came to the UK at the invitation of the British Government as citizens of the mother country under the British Nationality Act 1948, and who met terrible adversity in racism, discrimination and poor housing, but nevertheless gave so much and became a part of our national DNA.
At the other end of Coldharbour Lane from the labour exchange lies King’s College Hospital. The arrival of the Empire Windrush coincided almost exactly with the founding of our NHS, and we know that members of the Windrush generation have been essential to our NHS from its founding until the present day. In 1948, there were an estimated 54,000 nursing vacancies in the NHS, and the Government worked actively to recruit nurses from the Caribbean and subsequently from across the Commonwealth. By 1965, it is estimated that there were about 5,000 Jamaican nurses working in the NHS, and there are more than 200,000 black, Asian and minority ethnic staff working in our NHS today.
We cannot let this year’s Windrush Day celebration pass without paying special tribute to the diverse workforce in our NHS and social care, public transport and other frontline roles, who have worked tirelessly through the covid-19 pandemic, often sacrificing their own health and wellbeing to provide treatment and care to others. We particularly remember those who have tragically lost their lives to coronavirus—including 28-year-old pregnant nurse Mary Agyapong and public transport worker Belly Mujinga—two thirds of whom were from black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds. We owe them all a huge debt of gratitude for their service. I hope the Minister will agree with me that no one who aspires to lead our NHS should ever suggest that those who come from overseas to work in our NHS are anything other than highly valued professionals without whom the NHS would struggle to keep going.
Windrush Day was established in 2018, in the same year that the horrors of the Windrush scandal were revealed—the appalling betrayal of so many of the generation who had come to the UK as British citizens, at the invitation of the British Government to play vital roles in our economy and public services, who were denied their status and suffered immeasurably as a result. A Windrush Day celebration that fails to acknowledge the ongoing hardship and injustice suffered by victims of the Windrush scandal would be sentimental, hollow rhetoric.
The Government promised to right the wrongs of the Windrush scandal, but are failing to do so. An evaluation of the Windrush compensation scheme published by the National Audit Office in May found that the scheme had paid compensation to fewer than 700 victims and had 2,000 claims outstanding. The report also highlighted mistakes and poor-quality assurance, the high proportion of the scheme’s funding that has been spent on staff, and the low number of victims who have come forward to make a claim compared with the estimated total number of victims. Appallingly, 21 victims have died while still waiting to receive compensation.
Listen to the words of some of the victims and their families. Natalie Barnes, the daughter of Paulette Wilson, who died in July 2020, says that the
“Home Office still operates the hostile environment policy which contributed to the death of my mother. Before she passed, she was struggling with the forms and lack of support and respect from the Home Office. The scheme needs to be moved so there is proper justice to families like mine.”
Stephanie O’Connor, whose mother Sarah moved to the UK in 1967 and died in July 2019, said:
“For my mum the compensation scheme has come too late, and I am so disappointed that it is still taking this long for people to get what is owed to them. I just hope that people get compensated fairly for everything that they have been through.”
Anthony Bryan, whose utterly devastating experience, including two periods of detention in Yarl’s Wood, was the basis for the BBC drama “Sitting in Limbo”, said:
“The Home Office took away my liberty, livelihood, sanity, and fellow friends and campaigners…as a result of the hostile environment. They have offered me a compensation package which does not reflect what I need to build my life again and to move forward with my family. We need urgently an impartial and independent organisation to support all compensation claims and to provide mental health and wellbeing support. The Home Secretary is not righting the wrongs to sort out the Windrush Scandal.”
Anthony Williams, who served for 13 years in the British Army and was forced to remove his own teeth as a result of being denied access to dental care due to the scandal, said:
“The Home Office have no experience or track record in running a compensation scheme for people traumatised.”
These testimonies point to the urgent need for the administration of the Windrush compensation scheme to be taken away from the Home Office and handed to an independent body. Will the Minister commit to that today?
Yesterday was the deadline for EU nationals living in the UK to apply for settled status. In that scheme, the Government have yet again put an administrative barrier in front of people who have made their home in the UK and contributed to our country in multiple different ways. It risks making them illegal, with all the appalling consequences that would bring. The Government have not only failed to address the hostile environment that led to the Windrush scandal or to deliver justice for its victims; they are laying the foundations of the next scandal.
In response to the disproportionate impact of the coronavirus pandemic on black and Asian residents during the first wave, the Government set up the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities, chaired by Dr Tony Sewell. It had been hoped that the report would provide a rigorous analysis of racial and ethnic inequality in the UK and a detailed action plan that could be implemented with urgency to address it. Instead, the Sewell report left many black, Asian and minority ethnic residents, including many of my constituents who I have spoken to since it was published, feeling that their own Government were trying to gaslight them by denying that there is structural racism in the UK. The report has been condemned by respected organisations, including the Runnymede Trust and Black Cultural Archives, which I am proud is based on Windrush Square in my constituency.
Black Cultural Archives, the only organisation dedicated to the collection, preservation and celebration of black history in the UK, criticises the report for its absence of historical context and selective quoting of evidence and concludes that a report so lacking in rigour cannot provide the basis for meaningful action to address racism and racial inequality.
One of the ways in which we can stop a Windrush scandal happening again is by ensuring that our children are taught British history in an inclusive way that tells the story of our complex history of migration and the painful reality and legacy of colonialism and the transatlantic slave trade. That is not rewriting history; it is our shared history. Many schools have already developed good curriculum content, including some in my constituency, but that now needs to be expanded to all our schools. The Government have, in accepting the recommendations in Wendy Williams’ lessons learned review, accepted the importance of the teaching of history in preventing a future Windrush scandal. The Government have accepted that as being necessary for all Home Office staff, so it follows that it is also necessary for our schools.
Finally, will the Government support the campaign to raise the anchor from the Empire Windrush, which currently lies off the coast of Libya on the Mediterranean seabed, so that it can be displayed as part of the  75th Windrush anniversary celebrations in 2023? It is a tangible piece of that famous ship, which could be used to tell the story of the remarkable Windrush generation for years to come.
We celebrate today the remarkable Windrush generation—British citizens and part of our national DNA—who have contributed so much and suffered such appalling injustice. Celebration, however, is hollow while injustice and inequality continue. I call on the Minister to mark this Windrush Day by committing to meaningful action.

Peter Bottomley: I congratulate the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) on her introduction to this debate, and I hope that the Government will follow up her suggestion and see whether it is possible to retrieve the anchor from HMT Windrush off the coast of Libya. The history of the ship is interesting, but in six minutes I should probably not divert my remarks to that.
The article I was reading before coming to the Chamber is in The Howard Journal of Crime and Justice, vol. 60, no. 2, June 2021, page 251. It is by Anthony Quinn, Nick Hardwick and Rosie Meek, and its rather long title is, “With Age Comes Respect? And for Whom Exactly? A Quantitative Examination of White and BAME Prisoner Experiences of Respect Elicited through HM Inspectorate of Prisons Survey Responses.” It is a serious analysis of the information available. It does not condemn people, but it shows that the experiences of those who are black or minority ethnic are different at all ages in our prisons. I look forward to the time when that is not so.
The overall question I put to myself is this: will I live long enough to know when the colour of my skin will be as important, but no more, than the colour of my eyes or my hair? I count a number of retired bishops among my friends, and I know of eight times that bishops or archbishops have been stopped by the police. Every single one of those times it was John Sentamu, the Archbishop of York. He is now in the other place in his own right, rather than as an ecclesiastical bishop. We must answer our own question: is he the most curious driver there has been on the ecclesiastical Bench over the past 20 years, or does some degree of discrimination still apply to those driving while black?
I have spent a lot of time helping black police officers and doctors—or Asian; I am talking about people who are non-white rather than just black or Caribbean—and all the times I have taken up cases for black or Asian people, I found that they were treated by their employers, by employment tribunals, by the General Medical Council, and at one stage by the Information Commissioner’s Office, in ways that I regarded as inappropriate.
One good woman doctor was looking after diabetes patients. She was concerned about South Asian women being those least likely to come to advice centres. She wanted to set up a self-help project with them, supported by the trust. She sent their details to herself at another NHS address, and then got put in front of the GMC and the ICO for sharing patients’ details. She was doing what is now common practice, but 10 or 15 years ago it took the Information Commissioner’s Office a year to discover that she could not have committed an offence, and it took the GMC about the same amount of time.  Her trust has never been held to account for the appalling way she was treated. I could go on about Dr Bawa-Garba, the paediatric doctor who was left by herself, and left to swing by the GMC and the courts, until people came together—white and black—to say, “This is unfair. Get it reviewed.” The case was reviewed, and her prosecution ended.
I have previously mentioned in the House the case of the very good Sikh sergeant, now retired, Gurpal Virdi. He spent a week and a half on trial in the Crown court, having allegedly put a collapsible police truncheon up the bottom of a young man in the back of a police van 26 years before. The thing did not happen. The so-called police witness contradicted every statement of fact by the complainant. The complainant forgot that he had been arrested by Gurpal six months later, and another police officer in his company was never interviewed by the Directorate of Professional Standards of the Metropolitan police. When Gurpal complained to the Independent Police Complaints Commission, the case was referred by the commissioner, Dame Cressida Dick—who, by the way, had been a sergeant with Gurpal Virdi in Battersea—to the Directorate of Professional Standards, which said that its own investigation had been all right.
Will the Minister get the Directorate of Professional Standards of the Metropolitan police together with the CPS and the Attorney General’s office, and ask how Gurpal Virdi got prosecuted? Why will they not have a Richard Henriques-type inquiry—even a brief one—to learn the lessons from something that should never have happened?
I grew up—more accurately, my children grew up—in Stockwell in a mixed area, among people, black and white together, in their scout groups, Brownies, schools and confirmation classes. They did well. Many of them did well, whether they were white or black. I ask that we learn the lessons from the people of the Windrush generation, and other parts of the world, who try to bring their children up in a way that means they learn, play, and have the same kind of development as that described by the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) in his report. Give people chances, let them take them, and when we spot unfairness, do not leave it to the victims to sort things out, but decide that we should. If I am white, middle class, and in full-time employment—which I think I am; I cannot class myself as middle aged anymore—it is my responsibility. I hope to go on contributing to these debates until I can answer that question by saying that the colour of skin and place of origin do not matter in this country. It is merit; it is friendliness; and it is mutual support.

Kate Osamor: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) on having secured this important debate to commemorate Windrush Day 2021. Windrush Day is a day to redress the imbalance of injustice and sorrow our elders have experienced at the hands of this Government, and a day to pay homage and respect to the journey they took—many as toddlers—to what they thought was the motherland. The UK is where they call home, despite the stain of prejudice and racism they have experienced. Knowing  as we do the huge contribution that the Windrush generation have made to this country, it is even more galling that so many members of that generation were so badly let down, and continue to be let down, by this Government.
The cause of the Windrush scandal was an institutionally racist policy and culture levied at the top of Government, dwelling in the underbelly of the Home Office. This, above all, was focused on whipping up hostility to immigration and posing as tough. Serving these ends resulted in the disdain for individual people that the hostile environment policy represents, and which tore so many lives apart. After hearing countless stories of people who have lived in the UK for decades—some of whom could barely remember life before living in the UK—losing their jobs and homes, being refused medical care, and even being detained and deported in the worst cases, it is obvious that the Government should have had great humility and sought to address this great injustice as soon as possible.
It took a year after launching the Windrush compensation scheme for the Home Secretary to finally agree to lower the burden of proof required from “beyond reasonable doubt” to “on the balance of probability”. Sadly, we recently learned that 21 people have died while waiting for their compensation to be paid. My constituent Anthony Bryan has only just received his offer of compensation, a full year after the moving drama “Sitting in Limbo”, based on his experiences, was screened. Even once an offer is made—many of which appear to be unacceptably low—there is no mechanism for an independent review of the sum. The Windrush compensation scheme only re-criminalises the Windrush generation, and continues to fail the victims of the scandal day in, day out. It is obvious that the Home Office has lost any trust that could be placed in it to operate such a scheme, and that independent oversight should be brought in to ensure that recipients are properly compensated in a timely manner.

Steven Baker: I begin by referring to my unremunerated interest as chairman of the advisory board of Conservatives Against Racism For Equality. I am very glad to follow the hon. Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor), and I think it is time that we embrace the truth that she spoke: I certainly hope to do so. I do not think anybody could fail to be moved by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley)—I was particularly taken and moved by what he said—and I hope that both of us live long enough to see the day when skin colour matters no more or less than the colour of our eyes.
I am very glad to have co-sponsored this debate, and I am delighted to speak in it. I want to do three things: celebrate the Windrush generation, put a lament before the Minister, and then make some suggestions about what can be done. I really do celebrate the Windrush generation. About 5% of my constituents are black. They are overwhelmingly people connected to St Vincent and the Grenadines. They make a wonderful contribution to our community. No one who has listened to Wycombe Steel Orchestra could fail to enjoy it and no one could fail to notice the wonderful range of people involved in it—black and white together, enjoying themselves, celebrating their music and contributing to our community.  The Windrush generation saved, rebuilt and contributed to our country, and have shared in our prosperity, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West said, all too often they have not been well treated. That brings me to my second point.
When I look back at that time, I do really lament the way that people were treated. The Windrush generation came off the boat, as it was, and can clearly be seen in the footage and photographs to be wearing their very best clothes, putting their best foot forward, and coming—in a spirit of good will, hope and optimism—to contribute to this country. But when I listen to the stories that people tell me, very plainly they were not welcomed as they should have been; very plainly, the United Kingdom was not prepared to welcome people as it should have done. People were not treated as I would wish. I am very sorry about that, but it is not an injustice that I think we can put right today. We can put right, though, the things that people suffer in this age.
I recently met a young woman and was surprised to hear her story, which she has given me permission to mention. She was schooled in Wycombe. She is not very much younger than me—perhaps in her 30s; I flatter myself, having just turned 50. She told me that when she went through school in Wycombe, a teacher actually put her, as a young black girl, in a separate room with Asian children and did not teach them. What unspeakable racism such a thing would be.
I am happy to say that it must surely be unthinkable that such a thing would be tolerated today. If it were to happen, surely children, on speaking to their parents, would find that their parents were today empowered to complain immediately; and all of us would move swiftly to condemn it. Yet the woman who told me this story was not that much younger than me and it happened in my town. Let me be very clear that it is not happening today. If it was, it would be rooted out. I am very proud of all our schools, which are diverse and brilliant, and give children the best possible opportunities.

Jim Shannon: I have been sitting here listening to the contributions, including the excellent speech of the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley). As the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) will know, in Northern Ireland we have had 30 years of conflict. That conflict is over. We have an opportunity to build a future where we can have a shared society and a shared history, and there are many good things in Northern Ireland that I believe could be used for the betterment of people in this House and in England. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that we can all learn lessons from Northern Ireland, as our society has moved forward constructively?

Steven Baker: There certainly are lessons from Northern Ireland, yes. I have occasionally visited Belfast to hear from people there. The hon. Gentleman reminds me that humanity’s capacity to find reasons for hatred is almost unbounded, and it is sorrowful, particularly in Northern Ireland, that people have hated one another on the grounds of theological matters, which should be matters of academic interest and certainly not things over which anyone should hate.
I want to touch on the Windrush Day celebration that we had this year. Somebody on the call complained, actually, that the first item we watched was a film—I think from the ’80s; perhaps the late ’80s—that related  to a moment of tension in Wycombe, when some young black men and some young white men had come into conflict over football and an event going on somewhere else. When I watched the film, there were young black men in Wycombe complaining about how they had been treated, and one of the things I noticed was how justified they were. They were clearly intelligent, articulate and well-meaning, and completely dumbfounded and bewildered that anyone had so misconstrued their intentions and misrepresented the actions that had taken place. For example, the film covered an allegation that petrol bombs had been used, when no such thing had happened. It was a fiction, an invention targeted at these men—again, racism. I can see why black people would really resent being treated in such a way. People have long memories; they remember today how others were treated in the past, and they expect us to behave differently and to show some contrition, apology and humility, and I hope that I am doing so.
To turn to the Windrush scandal, I think the scheme is working. I have had a limited number of cases and I therefore cannot go into them, but it worked very well in one particular case that I hold in mind. I think that was perhaps because we were involved and that should not be necessary, but clearly the scheme is being improved. I am conscious that I should probably allow the Minister to describe later how the scheme is being improved, but I note in particular that the minimum award has gone from £250 to £10,000, and the maximum award from £10,000 to £100,000. I welcome those improvements.
However, I just want to say to my hon. Friend the Minister—he is my hon. Friend and a great man—that it is only by engaging with people and really listening to what they say and how they experience things that we can improve matters. For example, on a recent call to raise awareness of the Windrush compensation scheme in my community in Wycombe, I listened with horror and shame to somebody explaining that their mother had had to go through multiple hoops to prove that she was entitled to be here after decades of living comfortably in the United Kingdom, quite rightly, as a British person. Worse, her British-born children with British passports were worrying and anxious about their right to remain in the United Kingdom.
Why should such a thing happen? Inevitably, schemes have rules. What I would say to my hon. Friend the Minister and to officials listening is that I have great faith in him and I have great faith in officials. They are doing the very best they can in the spirit of good will. Yet the experience of the public engaging with the scheme is hurdles and bureaucracy and proof. For it to have provoked—in our age, today—the anxiety in British-born people with British passports for whom this is home, is itself, while inadvertent, shaming. I do not wish to spring this on my hon. Friend. I would not expect him to apologise apropos of nothing without looking into it, but I certainly want to apologise to those people. I will certainly always stand up for people who have felt like that and raise their case with Ministers. However they vote, it is my duty to make sure that—very much a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West—we stand up for people, those of us who are, if I may say so, privileged to be middle class, in full-time employment, white and not facing these difficulties.
Awareness, empathy, contrition and humility—they should be our watchwords. As we go forward, as chairman of Conservatives against Racism for Equality, I really  want our whole society to choose, in a radically moderate way, to be much more positively anti-racist; for all of us to be living out a life that says, “I accept the moral equality of every person and the legal equality of people in all our institutions”. That speaks to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West. Of course, everybody is politically equal. From that follows equality before the law and equality of opportunity, and embracing one another, so that we can go forward in hope to live in a world in which our skin colour matters no more or less than our eye colour.
I really do celebrate the Wycombe Windrush generation. The community is a wonderful, gentle loving community and I am very proud that they are in Wycombe. I am very proud of them. I just say to my hon. Friend the Minister—I can see he has listened very carefully; he is a great and good man—that in time, perhaps very swiftly, we might see institutions that make sure that people never again feel undervalued.

Joanna Cherry: I congratulate the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) on securing this important debate.
It is a rich irony that as we hold this debate to mark Windrush Day, another immigration scandal similar to that which affected the Windrush generation is potentially in the making. On Wednesday this week, the deadline for EU nationals to apply for settled status in the UK passed amidst worries that thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands, had missed the deadline. It is important for their sake, as well as for the sake of the wider black, Asian and minority ethnic community, that we do not miss the opportunity of this debate to address the reasons why so many of the Windrush generation and their descendants were wrongly detained, deported and denied legal rights.
It is important to be clear about what Wendy Williams identified in her “Windrush Lessons Learned Review”, in which she said:
“While the Windrush scandal began to become public in late 2017, its roots lie much deeper. Successive rounds of legislation and policy effectively set traps for the Windrush generation…Over decades, legislation progressively eroded the rights of the Windrush generation… The hostile environment was another step on the long road towards a more restrictive immigration regime, but it was also a departure in terms of the scale and seriousness of the effects which would be directly felt by individuals.
The department”—
by which she means the Home Office—
“developed immigration policy at speed, impelled by ministerial pressure, with too little consideration of the possible impact of the measures”.
That is reflected in the evidence monitoring the impact of the right to rent scheme, one of the key measures of the hostile environment that the Windrush generation came up against. The evidence monitoring that scheme shows that it discriminates on nationality and racial grounds.
Many of the hostile environment policies operate by outsourcing immigration enforcement to people in the community such as health workers, bank workers and employers. That process carries the same risk as that  identified in the right to rent scheme. Yet in the “Windrush Lessons Learned Review”, Wendy Williams found that the Home Office did not consider the risks to ethnic minorities appropriately as it developed the right to rent policy, and that it continued to implement the scheme after others had pointed out the risks and after evidence had arisen that the risks had materialised. Wendy Williams has said that the right to rent policy exemplifies the Home Office’s unwillingness to listen to other people’s perspective or take on board external scrutiny, and that that stems from
“an absolute conviction, rather than evidence”.
As a parliamentarian and a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, in 2018 I was involved in a detailed case study of two of the Windrush cases. When we looked at the files of these people, we saw the way in which those acting on behalf of the Home Office had repeatedly ignored extensive documentary evidence that they had every right to live in the United Kingdom. These people were detained and were on the verge of being deported from the United Kingdom. Given that treatment, it is perfectly understandable that there is serious concern about what might become of those EU nationals living in the United Kingdom who have not met the deadline for the settlement scheme and may therefore find themselves, like the Windrush generation, without the paperwork to evidence their right to be here.
As ever, it is the most vulnerable who will suffer most. During the Windrush scandal, it was old people who were hit hardest. We have heard other hon. Members talk about that. Turning again to the EU settlement scheme, on Twitter last night a consultant anaesthetist set out the story of his 83-year-old German-born mother, who came to the United Kingdom in 1962. She has given a lifetime of dedicated service to the United Kingdom and now, sadly, like so many people of her generation, she has dementia. She has no understanding of the process to gain the settled status, and without her son’s assistance she would not have been able to follow it. What of the elderly and vulnerable people with no loving family to help them navigate our complicated immigration system? Just like the Windrush generation, they will be at risk of losing bank accounts, tenancies, access to the NHS and welfare benefits.
We need to use this debate to make sure that we learn lessons from what happened during the Windrush scandal. Its effects were felt far and wide. One of my constituents, a man in his 70s, returned from holiday a few years ago to be told by Border Force officials that he was an illegal immigrant. He had been born in Canada to a Scottish mother and had come to the United Kingdom as a baby and known nowhere else. He never though that he would be the kind of person who would be caught up in the Windrush scandal, but he was and he was extremely upset and had a genuine fear that he was going to be deported, until my office was able to sort out his status and paperwork.
Another constituent of mine, a British national from the Commonwealth who came here before 1988, has been unable to get work as a professional bus driver for the past few years because he was wrongly accused of hijacking someone else’s identity. Although his Department for Work and Pensions file was eventually cleared and his right to benefits was reinstated, the Home Office did not regularise his identity, he cannot get a new passport and he cannot get a driving licence. He came to see me  as he was desperate to get his driving licence so that he could work. He was unaware of the Windrush scheme remedy, and the team in my office are now working with him to complete a Windrush application. I hope the Minister is listening and will ask his officials to look at this case specifically, to learn lessons of the devastation that can be caused by failing to properly resolve these types of situation.
As has been indicated, responses to parliamentary questions show that the Windrush compensation scheme is a lengthy experience, for some at least, with many waiting for more than a year. Shamefully, as has been said, 21 people have died waiting for a response. So it is time that the scheme was properly resourced and that legal aid was made available to help claimants through the bureaucracy. So my other ask of the Minister today is whether he can give us an undertaking to properly resource this compensation scheme, on which the Home Office has to date drastically underspent its budget, and whether he will afford legal aid for the more complicated cases.
Above and beyond everything else, what we should take from today’s debate is the lessons that should be learned from the Windrush scandal, and the title of Wendy Williams’ report refers to that. We should take them forward to make sure that no other people living in the UK suffer that sort of treatment in the future. If we do not address the hostile environment and its implications—through the right to rent scheme, in the workplace, in the health service and in the benefits system—we are at risk of going back to the days of signs in the window saying, “No blacks, no Irish need apply”, except that the signs will not be there because the system is more insidious and more covert, but it is still there. The Windrush scandal should have marked the end of the hostile environment, but the Home Office is forging ahead with it regardless. Its approach was recently typified by the carrying out of an immigration raid during a religious festival on Glasgow’s south side. The local multicultural community firmly and peaceably showed what they thought of the British Government’s conduct, and the victims of the raid were released. The shameful heavy-handed approach to immigration typified by the Windrush scandal should have no place in the modern United Kingdom. It certainly has no mandate in Scotland and no place in modern Scotland, which is one of the many reasons why the SNP wins election after election in Scotland. The responsibility to realise the means to do something about the hostile environment in Scotland weighs heavily on my party, but ultimately the responsibility for it weighs on the Minister’s party and I want to hear from him today that he has learned the lessons of the Windrush scandal and that steps will be taken to avoid it ever happening again.

Bell Ribeiro-Addy: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) on securing this important debate. It is absolutely right that today in Parliament we celebrate the Windrush generation from the Caribbean, from Africa, from Asia. These communities help make the UK what it is today and continue to contribute immeasurable amounts to every aspect of British society. I was very pleased on Windrush Day to join students at Corpus Christi Catholic Primary School on Brixton Hill as they played their steel pans and sang a rendition  of “You Can Get It If You Really Want” by Desmond Dekker. They had spent weeks learning about the Windrush generation and were very excited to tell me about everything that they had learnt—this included teaching me some things. I was pleased to join the CARICOM heads of mission at the Windrush commemoration at Windrush Square, at the African and Caribbean war memorial that is there, which is a very important place, especially given this year’s revelation about how disrespected our former Commonwealth officers—members of the military—had been and how those who were involved in various world wars had been treated.
It would be remiss of me not to pay tribute to Arthur Torrington of the Windrush Foundation and acknowledge his organisation’s call, joined by many of the Windrush generation throughout the country, to actually have the Windrush memorial that is planned built at Windrush Square, where they believe it rightfully belongs.
After the Windrush scandal broke, the apology that the Government eventually gave was momentous. It was the first time that I know of in my history that the British Government have apologised so unequivocally on an issue related to a matter of race. The celebrations that we have had over years since then, the establishment of Windrush Day and the acknowledgement of the importance of the Windrush generation to this country are important, but they all mean nothing if we do not end the scandal that is very much ongoing; if we do not admit and tackle racial injustice; and if we do not end the hostile environment.
We have to remember that the Windrush generation were treated terribly and some of them have even died before receiving a penny of justice and many died before receiving that apology. People were denied driving licences and homes and made unemployed. They were put in immigration detention centres, some were deported, and others were refused re-entry to this country and are still finding difficulty getting back into this country. Some had their families broken up. They were British citizens and this happened to them and to their loved ones.
As far as many are concerned, the scheme remains unfit for purpose. Too many have died waiting for compensation and too many have been denied it. Since the scheme started in 2019, a total of 2,367 people have applied, 122 claims have been rejected and 22 have resulted in no compensation at all. To date, only 687 claims have received any payment.
Despite the Home Secretary’s statement that the scheme has fundamentally changed since December, it is clear that that has not been the case. The author of the scheme, Martin Forde QC, has even said that those who deserve compensation think it is a “trap”—what an indictment of this Government and the Windrush generation’s confidence in them.
The scandal continues. Jacqueline McKenzie—a lawyer based in my constituency who has been holding pro bono legal surgeries for those affected by the scandal at the Black Cultural Archives and elsewhere throughout the country—has extensive evidence of persistent Home Office failings in not just administering the scheme but registering those Windrush generation members who require their citizenship. It goes on.
It should be no surprise to the Government that a number of people have signed a petition calling on the Home Office to amend the scheme, and that the Labour  party is rightfully calling for the scheme to be moved out of the Home Office. We do not honour the Windrush generation if we carry on like this.
We do not honour the Windrush generation if we continue to apply the hostile environment and continue with our broken immigration and nationality system. How can we say we have learned any of the lessons of the past if we are about to drive EU nationals into an effective Windrush scandal, with thousands of them probably having not applied for the scheme by yesterday’s deadline?
It does not honour the Windrush generation that in 2019 some 421,000 children were born in the UK who were not registered as British citizens—some of them, I might add, are the children and grandchildren of the Windrush generation directly—and that in that same year 177,000 children who had been raised in the UK for at least 10 years were also unregistered. These children are not migrants, just like the Windrush generation, and they have gone on or, if the issue of citizenship fees does not change, will go on to experience real-life difficulties, continuing to fall victim to the hostile environment when it comes to accessing healthcare, taking up employment, attending university, renting a home and opening a bank account—all things they should have access to.
It does not honour the Windrush generation if we continue to push issues of racism out of the way. The recent race report was an absolute disgrace in my view. It was a complete whitewash of the institutional racism that the Windrush generation and others have faced and continue to face. Even to imply that there may be no issues with institutional racism is a complete disgrace, in terms of people’s experience, but also I believe that it is an attempt to absolve the Government of the responsibility for tackling it: if there is no institutional racism, there are no duties for the Government to impose on institutions. This is just passing the buck as usual. We do not honour the Windrush generation and we do not respect their past when we do not have a plan to change this discrimination that ultimately and undoubtedly could, and will, impact on their futures.
We do not honour the Windrush generation if we do not educate people about the history of slavery and colonialism, which are very much a part of our history as Britain. It cannot be the case that we choose a history that acknowledges neither of these major events that are part and parcel of why we are the country we are today, part and parcel of why people in this country experience racism today, and part and parcel of why the Windrush generation and the Windrush scandal happened in the way that it did. It was because of this racism. It has been inspirational to see children, schools and teachers across my constituency taking up Windrush Day and black history lessons and actively doing it themselves, but they are not doing this with Government support—despite the recommendations in the Windrush lessons learned review—and that is wrong.
Yes, the Government have apologised with Windrush Day and have certain measures that may look like they are going in the right direction, but too many fall short of what is required. If the Government stand true to the apology that they made years ago, if they respect the Windrush generation, and if they respect the continued involvement and contribution that this generation and  many others from migrant backgrounds continue to make to this country, they will take stock, remove the Windrush compensation scheme from the Home Office so it can be managed properly, listen to the Windrush generation about where they would like to have their memorial, and take active steps acknowledging institutional racism and working to bring it to an end.

Tan Dhesi: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) on securing this important debate to mark Windrush Day, and the Backbench Business Committee on making time available for it.
The story of the Windrush generation is one of courage, determination, triumph over adversity and success. We mark Windrush Day to celebrate those who came into Tilbury docks in their Sunday best, as other Members have said, on that day in June 1948. We use Windrush to describe the wider post-war immigration from the Caribbean—those who came to Britain from Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, Barbados, Granada, St Lucia, Dominica, Guyana, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Haiti, St Kitts and Nevis, Montserrat, Antigua and Barbuda, and Anguilla. Indeed, my Slough constituency has the largest population of people of Anguillan heritage anywhere in the world outside Anguilla. I have had the pleasure on numerous occasions of attending events and dinners as we regularly host the Chief Minister of Anguilla.
Local people are well served by the Anguilla Community Group, Survival, the Slough Dominican Association, the Jamaican Association Slough and SANAS—the St Kitts & Nevis Association Slough—among many other associations and community groups. I am extremely proud to serve as the Member of Parliament for all these fine Slough Caribbean organisations and Slough’s Windrush generation and their descendants, who have contributed so much to the vibrancy and progress of our town.

Jim Shannon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his obvious involvement in the community that he represents, and I think the people of Slough are very fortunate to have him as their MP. Does he agree that Windrush Day 2021 allows those valued and cherished citizens to show the experiences of the West Indian people who have settled here and that their personal stories of migration also give a welcome representation of black British culture as it helped those of with working-class experience to connect with one another in this country—two traditions together under the British flag?

Tan Dhesi: I thank the hon. Gentleman who, as we all know, is an assiduous and dedicated Member—hardly an Adjournment debate goes past without the pleasure of hearing an intervention by him—and I agree with him fully. We need to learn about the history of the Windrush generation. More widely, our curriculum needs to change, and our children and all schoolchildren must learn that history through the changed curriculum. Only if we learn from our history, our past—as a history student, I know that better than most—can we stop repeating mistakes and stop the racism, slavery and other maltreatment that many individuals endured.

Peter Bottomley: I hope the hon. Gentleman will not look on this as an abuse, but I meant to ask the Minister whether, before the end of the debate or certainly afterwards, he would find the letter sent on 25 May this year at 1.41 pm to MHCLG correspondence by Arthur Torrington who, for 26 years, has run the Windrush Foundation. He has not had a reply. His essential point was to ask whether it was a good idea for the Windrush Foundation to be involved in Windrush Day events in the same way that the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust is involved in Holocaust Memorial Day. The Minister might not be able to respond directly, but I hope that he will respond to Arthur Torrington, who made a number of outstanding points which deserve answers. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way.

Tan Dhesi: I have a great deal of respect for the hon. Gentleman. I am glad that his intervention placed that on the record. I sincerely hope that the Minister will acknowledge and cover it in his response.
We owe so much to the Windrush generation and their descendants. They contributed to business, medicine, engineering and science, teaching, nursing, politics, academia, the voluntary sector and the armed services. Who can imagine our public life here in Great Britain without the contributions of Stuart Hall, C. L. R. James, Tessa Sanderson, Zadie Smith, Kelly Holmes, Lenny Henry, Rio Ferdinand and the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), among so many others?
I mentioned the contribution of people of African-Caribbean heritage to our politics, and I want to mention one person in particular: Lydia Simmons, whom I mentioned in my maiden parliamentary speech here in the Chamber and whom I am so fond of, especially given the warmth with which she greets me. Lydia is something of a Slough legend. She was born in Montserrat, came to the UK, and did the sensible thing and joined the Labour party. She was elected to Slough council in 1979. She was a council cabinet member and served until 2007. Lydia Simmons has the honour of being the first black person and the first Afro-Caribbean woman to become a Mayor in England. She has rightly been recognised by Her Majesty the Queen with an OBE.
When we hear the name of Windrush, we reflect on 1,001 stories of fortitude, sacrifice, bravery and service. We give thanks for all those who built communities, served our nation and strengthened our bonds of kinship and friendship with islands across the oceans. However, when we hear the name of Windrush, we also hear different connotations. Instead of gratitude, we think of cruelty; instead of recognition, we think of injustice; instead of service, we think of scandal. The Windrush scandal is a terrible blight on our recent past.
Wendy Williams’s lessons learned review stands as a terrible indictment of the Government’s so-called “hostile environment”. Williams stated that the cruel impact was “foreseeable and avoidable”. The Equalities and Human Rights Commission, the EHRC, said that the Government ignored its duty to equality. Even after Ministers admitted their failings and mistakes, the Windrush compensation scheme is a disaster: of the 11,500 people the Home Office estimates are eligible for compensation, a mere 687 have received their due. Justice delayed is justice denied and, tragically, at least 21 people have died waiting for justice. The need is there and the money  is there. What is missing is the political will and the basic efficiency to get the cash into the bank accounts of the people who deserve it.
When the Windrush generation arrived, they were frequently met with hostility and racism. They were denied a fair chance in housing, education and jobs. Those infamous signs in landladies’ windows were used to stoke up division and dire warnings of rivers of blood. Yet that generation proved the racists wrong. They added immeasurably to our national story and continue to do so. They started out in the cities, towns and villages of faraway Caribbean islands, but they proved—through their intellect, determination and sweat—to be the best of British. We honour them today and in their names we demand long overdue racial justice and equality for all.

Abena Oppong-Asare: It is a great pleasure to speak in this Windrush debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) on securing it. It is a privilege to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi).
Last week, we celebrated the fourth annual Windrush Day. It is an important moment to celebrate the British Caribbean community—in particular, the half a million people who came to the UK after the second world war. As hon. Members have said, it is also an important time to reflect on the shameful Windrush scandal and assess what progress the Government have made in righting the wrongs they have perpetrated.
I pay tribute to Patrick Vernon, who has campaigned over many years for this day to be recognised. In 2018, he wrote about the need to remember that
“many aspects of British society today would be unrecognisable without the contributions that immigration and integration have made: from the NHS to the monarchy, our language, literature, enterprise, public life, fashion, music, politics, science, culture, food and even humour.”
This year, it is more important than ever to recognise the contribution of the Windrush generation and those who have come after them. Of course, 1948 was the year when both the Empire Windrush arrived at Tilbury docks and our national health service was founded. Ever since then, the story of the NHS has been entwined with the story of immigration from the Caribbean and more widely. For more than 70 years, the NHS has cared for us in our time of need—never more so than during the last 16 months. Today, I pay tribute to the nurses, doctors, care staff and health workers who have been on the frontline during the covid pandemic.
I now turn to the Windrush compensation scheme. We should be clear that no financial compensation can truly make up for the hardship, suffering and mistreatment that the Windrush generation has experienced as a result of Home Office policies and practices. Nevertheless, the launch of the scheme in April 2019 marked an important step towards achieving justice for the Windrush generation and their families. Since then, however, I have been very concerned by the progress that the Home Office has made to ensure that everyone who is eligible receives their rightful compensation.
A recent report by the National Audit Office raised a number of issues that Ministers need to address urgently. The Home Office has received significantly fewer   applications to the scheme than it anticipated. By the end of March 2021, the Department had received just 2,163 applications. I repeat: 2,163 applications. Does the Minister accept that significantly more outreach work is needed to ensure that everyone who is eligible knows about the scheme and is supported to apply to it?
For claims received up to March 2020, the scheme made some form of payment within 12 months to only 10% of claimants residing in the UK and 1.1% of claimants residing outside the UK. Does the Minister think that it is acceptable that 90% of claimants had not received any payments a year after they applied—and if not, what steps will the Home Office take to improve the situation?
Tragically, many of the Windrush generation have died without receiving the compensation they deserve. A recent article in the Big Issue quoted several people who have lost their lives as they waited for a decision on the scheme. Natalie Barnes, daughter of Paulette Wilson, who died in 2020, said:
“The Home Office still operates the hostile environment policy which contributed to the death of my mother. Before she passed, she was struggling with the forms and lack of support and respect from the Home Office. The scheme needs to be moved so there is proper justice to families like mine.”
I also have several constituents who have been waiting for well over a year for a decision on their applications. One told me that he has been told to send the same documentation three times, despite calling the helpline multiple times, and he has been unable to receive an update on his claim. I am still waiting for a response to my correspondence on that issue. Other constituents have faced similar challenges in terms of getting basic answers from the Home Office about the progress of their applications. The Home Office must urgently improve how it deals with these cases from start to finish.
Finally, let me turn to the changes that the Government must make to this scheme. The “Fix the Windrush compensation scheme” petition has now received more than 100,000 signatures. It calls for three things: first, for the compensation scheme to be removed from the Home Office and managed by an independent non-government agency to provide trust, respect and confidence to the victims and their families; secondly, for the provision of substantial funding for outreach schemes to reach Windrush victims in the UK, Africa and the Caribbean; and thirdly, for the Government to include a full apology letter with every compensation award.
I urge the Government to consider taking these steps to put some dignity and humanity into the compensation scheme and to give those affected the justice they deserve. Successive Governments have failed the Windrush generation. The Government must now stop repeating the mistakes of the past and deliver justice to those who have been denied it for far too long.

Sarah Owen: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) for securing this important debate. It is truly an honour to follow the brilliant contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare).
This year marks the fourth national Windrush Day, commemorating the arrival, on board the Empire Windrush, of the first Caribbean immigrants to the UK, who played a vital role in rebuilding Britain after the second world war. After the ravages of war, Britain had to heal, rebuild and recover. It was a task that we could not and did not manage alone. This wonderful Windrush generation were the drivers, the nurses and the workers who helped not only to rebuild Britain, but to shape the Britain that we have today, and it is all the better for it. Towns and cities across the country rightly pay tribute to their efforts, including in Luton, where the Windrush flag was raised above our town hall. The ceremony was organised by young leaders in Luton and supported by the African Caribbean Community Development Forum.
I am proud that our town’s tribute and gratitude live on through the generations, but gratitude is something that a Government must not only show and express—at the moment, the only thing this Government are paying is lip service to the Windrush generation, not the compensation that is owed. That is simply not good enough. How many more people must die before they get the justice that is rightly owed to them? When will all the Windrush generation get the compensation that is owed to them? Until we start to see the words match the action, I am afraid that warm words will continue to be cold comfort to those who gave so much. The scale and depth of this injustice is huge: deportations, innocent people being detained, all under a Government who have moved so far to the right that the centre ground is barely visible, let alone the ability to see people as humans and fellow brothers and sisters.
I welcomed the Home Office’s apology, but an injustice on this scale needs to be followed with action. I will come on to the virtually non-existent compensation later, but I am talking about genuinely learning lessons from the past. Instead of taking a more humane, humble and appreciative, as well as economically sound approach to what people from other countries give to and do for this country, the Government have steered down an ever-more hostile and fiercely right-wing approach. Those who seek refuge in our country are now to be processed—such a horrible word in itself when we are talking about people who are fleeing famine, war or oppression in another country. We have seen “Go Home” vans. Healthcare workers who have given their all throughout the pandemic are subjected to immigration health surcharges to pay for the very health service that they are working in. The Prime Minister cosies up to divisive leaders and is himself yet to apologise for racist remarks about Muslim women and black people.
Since their apology to the Windrush generation of 2018, this Government have not learned from their past mistakes. In fact, the situation is getting worse. After I raised multiple questions on the compensation scheme, the Home Office refused to tell me how many people in Luton North, or even in the region, had been awarded compensation. It cited some nonsense about telling me the number of people who had received compensation—I just asked for a number—potentially identifying people, which it would never do. So I ask again: how many people in Luton North and in Bedfordshire are still waiting for what is owed to them? If the Minister will not share that with us, why not? Why has so little of the £200 million compensation fund been allocated to the people who deserve it?
Last year, I wrote to the Home Secretary on behalf of a constituent. I was days away from having my baby. I got a response when that baby was crawling, nearly eight months later. That is simply not good enough. I appreciate that we have had a pandemic and things will take longer for Departments to deal with than normal, but eight months is far too long for the Windrush generation to wait to hear an answer, particularly an older generation that has been left more vulnerable and disproportionately affected during the pandemic.
I hope that the Windrush generation’s wait for justice will soon be over, because far too many of their peers never lived to see the day and that injustice can now never be redressed. Now the Minister must act. The compensation owed to people must find its way to their pockets and their bank accounts as soon as possible, and we must know when that is going to happen. If the Government are to truly learn the lessons of the past, they must end the hostile environment that so many of our black, Asian and minority ethnic communities have to live in every day.

Margaret Ferrier: I thank the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) for securing this important  debate.
The findings of the National Audit Office on the compensation scheme for the Windrush scandal can only be described as catastrophic. As we have heard from many hon. Members across the Chamber, more than 21 members of the Windrush generation have died awaiting compensation, and far too little support has been provided to those making claims. These claims need to be processed quicker to ensure that no one else from the Windrush generation sadly passes away while still waiting. The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) talked about the scheme needing to be properly resourced, and I agree. If one is to judge the UK Government’s commitment to amending the harm they have caused to black citizens of the UK and the Commonwealth by the efficacy of this compensation scheme, one may come to rather distressing conclusions.
Many members of the Windrush generation continue to suffer from another of the Government’s ill-judged and callous policies: frozen pensions. Successive UK Governments have pursued an approach to state pensions whereby recipients in some countries receive annual pension payment increments but pensioners in other countries, including all but two Caribbean countries, do not. Some members of the Windrush generation retired to their countries of birth only to find themselves at the receiving end of this harsh policy. That includes more than 300 pensioners living in Antigua and Barbuda, 1,300 in Trinidad and Tobago, almost 1,000 in Grenada, more than 800 in Saint Lucia and hundreds more across a number of other Caribbean islands.
One such pensioner is 90-year-old Nancy Hunte, who moved to the UK from Antigua with her daughter, Gretel, who is now 66. Nancy spent 33 years working in Leicester, while Gretel spent two decades working in UK factories. Due to their return to their country of origin, Nancy has now missed out on £70,000 in pension  payments, receiving only £39 per week, which is less than a third of the pension she deserves. Gretel, who has now reached retirement age, faces the same fate as her mother.
Another pensioner in this situation whom I had the great pleasure of meeting virtually a couple of days ago is 82-year-old Monica Philip. She was born in Antigua and moved to the UK when she was 20 years old. She spent 37 years employed in the UK, including as a civil servant at the Ministry of Defence and in the City of London social services. She had to return to Antigua in 1996 to care for her ailing mother. Her state pension has been frozen at £74 per week, which is half what her sister Naomi, who still lives in Leicester, receives. How can that be fair?
The UK Government could choose to end this injustice at any time. All that it would take to put a stop to the frozen pensions policy is domestic legislation unilaterally uprating the pensions of UK pensioners in countries that the UK has no reciprocal pension agreement with. The Government do not take these steps, as they insist that they will only uprate pensions through such reciprocal agreements. That would be an almost reasonable position if it were not for the fact that the Government baulk at the opportunity when offered new reciprocal agreements, such as the one recently offered by Canada. It would be helpful if the Government could clarify why they take such a contradictory stance, where on the one hand they insist that they merely seek bilateral reciprocal deals, and on the other they will not actively seek such deals or seriously consider them when they are presented with the opportunity to secure one.
I understand that the Minister may not have responsibility for this, but has he had discussions with colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions on the impact that these frozen pensions have had on Windrush pensioners who have retired to their countries of origin, especially in the light of the inefficacy of the compensation scheme? Nothing can excuse this lack of support for Windrush pensioners who put in decades of hard work rebuilding the UK after the second world war.

Claudia Webbe: I congratulate the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) on securing this important debate.
I am a daughter of the Windrush generation. When my parents and my family arrived from Nevis and settled in Leicester, they made tremendous sacrifices so that they could contribute to our local and national community. The Windrush generation were part of a brief post-war attempt to reconcile centuries of extractive, violent colonialism by ensuring that members of the British empire could settle in the UK. Despite facing horrific systemic racism and discrimination, the Windrush generation helped to rebuild a country ravaged by war and made an immense contribution to shaping the country we live in today.
The British state has not held up its end of the bargain, and the mistreatment of the Windrush generation that ensnared UK residents in the Government’s callous, racist hostile environment immigration system is one of the most evil chapters in modern British history. British citizens who built our NHS, who worked in frontline jobs and whose actions define public service were  criminalised. They were denied access to work, housing and healthcare for no other reason than their country of birth or the colour of their skin.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission found that the Government had failed to comply with their equality duties. Wendy Williams’ Windrush lessons learned review found a culture of neglect within the Home Office that created conditions in which British citizens were systematically denied their rights due to damaging, pernicious immigration targets. That review made 30 recommendations that the Home Secretary committed to implementing, yet progress has been slow—so slow that Wendy Williams accused the Home Office of paying “lip service” to the urgent reform that is necessary. It is utterly shameful that only 687 people have received compensation from the Windrush compensation scheme out of 11,500 people who the Home Office estimated might be eligible, although the National Audit Office found that 15,000 people might be eligible. That means that less than 5% of people whose lives were unjustly ruined by this Government have received the compensation they deserve. Tragically, at least 21 people have died waiting for justice.
The National Audit Office found that despite the compensation scheme needing 125 full-time caseworkers, when the Home Office launched the scheme, it had only six in post. Applicants are also forced to go through a complex, convoluted and tortuous process that includes at least 15 steps, and the wait times are unacceptably long. This derisory commitment shows how utterly unserious this Government are about making amends for their abuse of human rights. Frankly, it seems that this Government could not care less about the victims of their own institutionally racist policies. Putting the same Home Office that is responsible for the Windrush scandal in charge of the compensation scheme is like leaving a fox in charge of a henhouse. The scheme must be removed from Government and placed under the control of a properly funded, independent regulator.
The mishandling of the Windrush compensation scheme rubs salt into wounds, heaping insult upon injustice. Under this Government, citizenship rights have been deliberately obscured, and deportation and removal targets have taken precedent. They have made no effort to end the institutionally racist hostile environment policies that created this disaster. Indeed, the Windrush scandal is perhaps the definitive example of institutional racism, and the fact that this Government have embarked on a damaging crusade against the reality of institutional racism shows just how little they have learned from the suffering of the Windrush generation. I am very concerned by this Government’s denial of structural discrimination, as demonstrated by the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities’ report, which sought to blame minorities for, and gaslight them about, the structural disadvantages they face. This is not a Government who want to learn lessons from the Windrush scandal; it is a Government who are cynically using culture war tropes that are designed to divide our communities against each other and distract from the real causes of inequality and injustice.
The victims of the Windrush scandal need urgent justice. The compensation scheme must be taken away from the Home Office and rapidly accelerated. Beyond  this, the Government must recall the suffering of the Windrush generation and remember that the demonisation of migrants and African, African-Caribbean, Asian and minority ethnic communities has devastating consequences for the lives of British residents. Ultimately, the Government must abandon their divisive agenda and commit to governing in the interests of all our citizens, regardless of the colour of our skin or our country of birth.

Kim Johnson: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) on securing this very important debate. Windrush Day is our chance to celebrate the incredible contributions made by the remarkable generation of workers who came at the invitation of the British Government and helped to rebuild our country from the ashes of the second world war and to establish the NHS. I welcome this opportunity to pay tribute to their tireless work and to articulate our country’s massive debt of gratitude to them.
Our celebrations are marred, however, by the disgraceful way in which this Government have repaid these workers in creating the hostile environment. The Windrush scandal is a stain on this Government’s conscience and remains one of the greatest racist injustices of our time. Fewer than 700 people have received compensation to date out of the over 11,000 who may be eligible, and at least 21 people have died waiting for justice—as we know, justice delayed is justice denied. I call on the Government now to apologise for these atrocities, and to commit to overhauling the scheme and placing it under independent leadership to help restore faith in the process to get people the compensation and justice they deserve.
If this Government were truly serious about learning the lessons of the Windrush scandal and righting this wrong, they would review and roll back their entire hostile environment policy. That includes the EU settlement scheme deadline, which passed yesterday and threatens to create yet another similar scandal of the same proportions. Instead of lifting the deadline, as so many of us have called for, this Government have chosen to press ahead with a process that means many EU citizens residing in the UK who, for many reasons, were not able to complete the application process on time, today woke up without the right to rent, work or access free NHS healthcare. This Government’s response that millions have applied does not answer the question about what will happen to those who lose out. Will the Minister today give reassurance about his Government’s plan to ensure that the disastrous treatment of the Windrush generation and their families will not be applied to EU citizens who have not managed to meet this deadline?
This Government’s harsh treatment of those who already have the right to live and work in this country is a matter of reproach, but so too is their treatment of those seeking safety on our shores. Last month, the High Court ruled that the Government’s housing of asylum seekers at Napier barracks is appalling, that the crowded conditions were inadequate and unsafe, and that a major coronavirus outbreak there was inevitable. It also found that residents of Napier barracks were unlawfully detained there. This week, plans by the Home Secretary to dump asylum seekers in offshore camps in Rwanda were revealed. These unconscionable plans threaten  rampant human rights violations against some of the most vulnerable people in our society who have come to our country seeking the help and compassion that they have a right to expect and receive. I call on this Government to think again and to reject this inhumane course of action.
Lastly, I turn to this Government’s plans for the NHS. This unparalleled institution, which got our country through this pandemic, was built on the backs of the Windrush generation. We now have a Health Secretary who, until just days ago, was on £150,000 a year from investor JP Morgan, a bank that is a major player on the private healthcare scene. He is also on record as being a strong advocate for the privatisation of public services. This year has shown more than ever the value of a public healthcare system that is universally free at the point of use. Today is a commemoration of the incredible contribution of the Windrush generation, and I take this opportunity to call once again on this Government to honour their work and the sacrifices they made, put right the wrongs the victims of the hostile environment have suffered and take the steps needed to put the NHS back on its original footing—publicly owned, publicly funded, free at the point of use and available for all.

Anne McLaughlin: First, I pay tribute to those caught up in the Windrush scandal for hanging on in there and sticking with this, and to the many campaigning community groups, activists, supporters, and friends and family of those who have suffered so badly. I thank them for campaigning, signing petitions and speaking to us, as well as for looking in on people and looking after people. Without them, people would have suffered even more greatly than they already have.
I also pay tribute to the hon. and right hon. Members who have stuck with this issue and fought tooth and nail for people. I make particular mention of the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes)—I congratulate her on securing this debate, and thank the Backbench Business Committee, too, for agreeing to it—and there are many more who have spoken today and in the past.
As the SNP’s immigration spokesperson, I also want to mention the consistent position that both my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) have taken over the years. They joined other voices in pointing out the scheme’s many flaws and suggested improvements, including making it independent. If someone is ordered to pay me compensation for a crime they have committed against me, they should not decide how much and when I will paid. They are the ones in the wrong, and just as it is taken out of their hands, so it should be with the Home Office.
My colleagues argued strongly for legal aid, but again they were ignored. They also argued for changing the standard of proof required in some financial claims away from beyond reasonable doubt to the normal civil standard of balance of probabilities. On that, at least, the Minister took advice from Martin Forde QC, who  designed much of the scheme, and the guidance was changed. That is good, but the other flaws remain and, as we have heard, progress has been painfully slow.
As a new MP in 2015, I regularly felt frustrated at passionately arguing the case for someone or something but almost never getting anywhere in terms of policy changes. However, I underestimated the importance that people place on MPs speaking up for them and acknowledging their injustice. Therefore, as the SNP’s immigration spokesperson I will say again that what happened to those people who came here as part of the Windrush generation was utterly wrong. This Government should be ashamed of themselves and should be doing everything they can to make amends, in so far as is possible. They talk about it but, as we have heard, it is not happening for enough people and it is not happening fast enough.
When this scandal emerged, the Home Office claimed that it was a one-off admin error and that delays and complications with administering the compensation were also admin errors. I would argue, though, that it is too much of a coincidence that it all fits with this deeply hostile environment. There is a growing narrative from this Government about two types of immigrants: the good, compliant ones and the illegal ones, who are, it follows, according to this Government, bad, and bad for the UK.
That fits with the wider narrative that there is no such thing as white privilege when there absolutely is, that there is no institutional racism on these islands when there is, and that the British empire was a force for good in the world. The next thing we know, we will be hearing those on the Government Benches telling us that the British went around the globe because they had to civilise people, and they will not blink an eye when they say it, though I make notable exceptions for those who have spoken in this debate. That narrative is increasing and it allows things like the Windrush scandal to happen.
I do not want to spend too much time away from the specific issue of Windrush, because those people absolutely deserve the focus of this debate to be on them. However, I want to list a few other things that the hostile anti-immigrant narrative is allowing to happen right now. It is allowing people to be held in communal accommodation completely inappropriate to their needs, such as army barracks, hotels and hostels, and in Glasgow the dreadful so-called mother and baby unit where babies and toddlers have no space—and I mean no space—to do anything other than sleep and eat.
The narrative allows highly skilled migrants—another group of people we asked to come here because we needed their skills—to be thrown out of the UK on the most spurious of reasons. It has allowed the Home Office to go searching for ways to throw them out, asking the tax office to tell it of any who have ever had any discrepancies in their self-assessment returns. Then, despite Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs having resolved the issue years ago and being completely satisfied, the Home Office is being allowed to kick those people out.
I could not fail to mention today, on 1 July 2021, the up to 1 million EU citizens who have missed the deadline to apply to remain in the country that is their home. Many of them simply will not have believed that they had to apply, perhaps because for many of them, like the Windrush generation, this has been their home for  longer than the Home Secretary has been alive. Whatever the reason, those people have today lost their right to live and work here, and employers have lost the right to employ them, no matter how badly they are needed. That could have been avoided, and it would have been avoided had the Home Secretary, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster stuck to the pledge they signed when trying to get people to vote for Brexit. That pledge said to EU citizens: “Nothing will change for you.” But it has and I am deeply concerned about those EU citizens living here today. It could also have been avoided if the Government, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West pointed out, actually learned lessons from the lessons learned review carried out by Wendy Williams.
As I have said, I do not want to take away today from the people we are here to talk about—the Windrush generation. They came here because they were invited. My partner’s family were among them, but thankfully we are not caught up in this. We needed them to help rebuild after world war two. While people in the Caribbean were well used to having white people in charge of their country, they were not used to the racist abuse to which they would be subjected when they reached our shores. They assumed they would be welcome because they were part of the Commonwealth, they had fought in our wars and, as I said, they were invited here, so it must have been a huge shock when they got here. Let us not forget that the 5,000 Jamaican nurses mentioned by the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood who came here to provide us with healthcare meant there were 5,000 fewer nurses in Jamaica, the country that had trained them.
I turn to the complexity of applying for compensation. The Home Office has said it is taking so long because it is very complex and that assessing financial loss and other profound impacts and consequences is not easy and cannot be done overnight. The fact that each claim takes not the 30 hours of staff time that were estimated but, according to the National Audit Office, 154 hours certainly backs that up. How can the Home Office also claim, therefore, that it is so straightforward that those applying do not need a lawyer? All the reasons that the Home Office gives for it taking so much time are the same reasons why legal aid should be allowed to support applicants. That would also make the Home Office’s task easier and hopefully build some faith in the scheme. That is why the Home Affairs Committee recommended it and why the SNP tabled an amendment to the Windrush Compensation Scheme (Expenditure) Bill to that effect.
The recent news that the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants is teaming up with seven companies to give free legal advice was so welcome and such a relief. All I can say is: thank goodness for a legal profession that believes in access to justice for all. However, it should not be down to the profession and its resources. People must be given support by the perpetrators of this outrage, and the scheme must be independent of those perpetrators.
Finally, why on earth did the Home Office last year spend only £8.1 million of the £15.8 million budget allocated to run the scheme? The link between that and the lengthy delays is obvious. The solution is obvious, but my fear is that, for all the reasons I mentioned, the Government are not looking for solutions because their  political ideology wants to make these islands as inaccessible and unwelcoming as possible to those they consider foreign, whether they are or not.

Nick Thomas-Symonds: It is a privilege to close this crucial debate on behalf of the Opposition. I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time for it. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) on her work in securing the debate and leading it. I echo her praise of campaigners such as Patrick Vernon.
As my hon. Friend demonstrated in her speech, she is a powerful and passionate advocate for the Windrush generation. I was lucky enough, as she said, to visit her constituency for a lunch marking Windrush Day. Spending time in the company of people from that generation is a real honour, and it offered a unique insight into a remarkable part of our national story. The Empire Windrush docked in Tilbury on that Tuesday in June 1948—73 years ago—after travelling thousands of miles across the Atlantic ocean from the Caribbean. On that day, it would have been impossible to predict the incredible impact that those people who became known as the Windrush generation would have on our country.
The Labour Government of the time needed people to come and contribute to the economic recovery after world war two, and so many people travelled so far from home to help rebuild the country from the ruins of the war. They did that and so much more. The Windrush generation and their families have made a huge impact on every facet of our national life, from our NHS to our transport system, public and private sectors, the arts, culture, religion and sports—the list is endless. When I spoke to people at that lunch in Brixton, they gave me a powerful reminder of the appalling discrimination that generation faced when they arrived and the vile racism that made it hard to access work and homes or even feel safe on the streets, yet they persisted. We owe them a huge debt of gratitude.
We have heard many fine speeches about the Windrush generation, their experience and their continued quest for justice. We have heard moving stories in contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Edmonton (Kate Osamor), for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), for Slough (Mr Dhesi), for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare), for Luton North (Sarah Owen), for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson) and for Leicester East (Claudia Webbe). It is a national scandal that the Windrush compensation scheme is the offensive mess that it is, because the impact of the Windrush scandal demands a timely, efficient, comprehensive and sensitive compensation scheme that truly reflects the gravity and scale of the injustice. That is so important because people who dedicated their lives to this country were treated in an unforgivable way. People were cut off from accessing the very basics of human life: work, housing and healthcare. Some were stranded away from home. Totally innocent people were forced into desperate situations—destitute and unable to work or receive financial support.
The Wendy Williams review came incredibly close to calling the Home Office institutionally racist. The Equality and Human Rights Commission found that the Home Office did not comply with its equality duty when understanding the impact on the Windrush generation  and their descendants when developing, implementing and monitoring the hostile environment policy agenda. I take this moment to praise the campaigners who fought so hard to expose this injustice and for the rights of victims. Each and every one of them has shown remarkable dedication and care for others.
It was fitting that on Windrush Day a blue plaque was dedicated in honour of the late Paulette Wilson. Paulette Wilson came to Britain in the winter of 1968 after Enoch Powell’s infamous speech earlier that year. That her plaque is now on his former constituency office is a sign of progress, but it is also a powerful reminder that change never comes easily and always has to be fought for. It requires perseverance and keeping going when things are tough, and that is exactly what so many Windrush campaigners have done with great courage. We pay tribute to them today, but their deeds must be matched by action from this Government.
That is why the Windrush compensation scheme is such a crucial issue. It is not just a vital way to ensure that people have access to the funds they need as a result of the huge wrongs they have endured, important though that is; it is also an opportunity for those in power to show they have listened, appreciated the scale of the scandal and acted. Sadly, that has not been the case. In one of Britain’s most challenging hours, the Windrush generation answered the Government’s call for help, but when this Government were called on to act for them, they have done too little, too late.
Appallingly, we know that at least 21 people have died waiting for justice from the scheme. The Government’s own figures show that just 687 people have received compensation, of the 11,500 who the Home Office estimate might be eligible. That is nowhere near good enough. I have met people who have been offered derisory compensation payments—insulting amounts that come nowhere near recognising the scale of the damage done.
The Government say they have overhauled the scheme and increased some of the payments, but they have never explained why those measures were not in place from the start and why they are still inadequate. The speed of the scheme is totally unacceptable, and do not just take my word for it: the Home Secretary wrote to me yesterday to say that she agreed with me that
“claims need to be resolved more quickly”.
The National Audit Office has been critical of the Windrush compensation scheme.
It is no wonder, therefore, that the victims of Windrush who I have spoken to have lost faith in the Home Office to deliver this scheme. That is why the Labour party, along with voices from across society and especially in the Windrush generation are calling for the Windrush scheme to be overhauled, by placing it in the hands of an independent body away from the Home Office. That body must have the confidence of victims so as to restore faith in the process and to quickly get compensation to people who have been so appallingly treated. Ministers must come forward and give cast-iron guarantees on when each and every finding from the Wendy Williams review will be implemented, not just a promise that they will be; when will they be implemented?
The reality is that the time for warm words is over. There has to be a fundamental change: a fundamental change in the Home Office and a fundamental change in the compensation scheme. The time for platitudes is over. The time for action is now.

Kit Malthouse: I thank the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) for calling this debate and my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) for his co-sponsorship. I also thank colleagues from across the House for their insightful and passionate contributions to this vitally important subject.
Last Tuesday, on Windrush Day, we came together to celebrate the Windrush generation. Events were held all over the United Kingdom and the sight of the Windrush flag flying above so many buildings, including here in Parliament—and, as we learned, Luton town hall—was a splendid illustration of what Windrush means to this country. The arrival of the Empire Windrush at Tilbury docks 73 years ago was a signal moment in our history. It has become a symbol of the rich human tapestry that makes this country great. The passengers on that ship, their descendants and those who followed them have made and continue to make a unique and enormous contribution to the social, economic and cultural life of the United Kingdom.
As someone who was brought up in the constituency of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson) and who has spent many years in city and local government in central London, I have shared triumph and tragedy, hate and love with the descendants of and members of the Windrush generation, and seen what an enormous contribution they make to our national life. As the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare) and others noted, many have been at the forefront of the fight against covid, working in the NHS, our emergency services and in other key frontline roles.
The Windrush generation have helped to shape our country. This is their home. Without them, we would be immeasurably diminished; and yet, despite all that, some of them suffered terrible injustices at the hands of successive Governments of all flags. The fact that so many people were wrongly made to feel that this country was not their home is a tragedy and an outrage. I know that the scars run deep. This sorry episode will not be forgotten, nor should it be. This Government have done and continue to do everything in our power to right those wrongs. I will set out some of the steps that we have taken.
In April 2018, the Home Office established a taskforce to ensure that individuals who have struggled to demonstrate their right to be here are supported in doing so. Since then, we have provided documentation to over 13,000 individuals, confirming their status. In April 2019, we launched the Windrush compensation scheme to ensure that members of the generation and their families are compensated for the losses and impacts that they have suffered because they were unable to demonstrate their lawful status in this country.
I reassure Members that we are absolutely committed to ensuring that everyone receives the maximum compensation to which they are entitled. My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe mentioned a cap of £100,000. There is now no cap on the amount we will pay out. Since April 2019, we have offered more than £32.4 million, of which £24.4 million has been paid across 732 claims. They have been accepted by the individuals and, as I say, paid. I reassure Members that everybody who accepts and receives a payment also receives a personal letter of apology from the Home Secretary.
We are determined to get this right and that means taking action to improve our approach, where necessary. In December, in response to feedback from members of the community, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary overhauled the compensation scheme so that people would receive significantly more money more quickly. The changes have had an immediate impact. Within six weeks, we had offered more than we had in the previous 19 months. Since the end of December, we have offered an average of £5.2 million a month and have paid more than seven times the total amount that had been paid out before then.
Despite this progress, as a number of Members have claimed, a number of people would rather see the compensation scheme moved from the Home Office to an independent body. However, taking such action at this stage would risk significantly delaying payments to people. The first stage in deciding a claim for compensation is to confirm an individual’s identity and eligibility. This is linked to their immigration status. It would be difficult to decouple that from the Home Office without increasing the time taken to process an individual’s claim and issue payments. There would also be considerable disruption to the processing of outstanding claims while the new body was established and made operational.
That is not to say we are operating without external scrutiny—far from it. For those dissatisfied with their compensation offer, an independent review can be conducted by the Adjudicator’s Office, a non-departmental public body that is completely independent of the Home Office. The scheme was set up and designed with the independent oversight of Martin Forde QC in close consultation with those affected by the scandal. Our approach was informed by hundreds of responses to a call for evidence and a public consultation. Earlier this year, we appointed Professor Martin Levermore as the new independent person to advise on the Windrush compensation scheme and ensure it is easy to access, fair and meets the needs of those affected. We continue to listen and respond to feedback about the scheme to ensure it is operating effectively.
We are not complacent, however. We recognise the need to resolve claims more quickly. Some people have been waiting too long for that to happen and that is not acceptable, as the Home Secretary noted in her letter.

Nick Thomas-Symonds: In two years and three months, the Home Office has resolved 687 claims. Does the Minister seriously think that any other system properly set up would be that slow?

Kit Malthouse: As I outlined, the current total is actually 732 claims, but it has been too slow. That is why, as I said, the Home Secretary took direct action in December last year and we have seen a significant acceleration in payments thus far. We hope that that progress will continue.
As a number of Members mentioned, the death of 21 individuals before we were able to offer them compensation does weigh extremely heavily on all of us and is a source of sorrow and regret. We are working with their families to ensure that compensation is paid out, while recognising that doing so can never provide adequate consolation. Now we have completed the implementation of the December changes I referred to,  we are committed to reducing the time between submission and decision over the coming months. To do that, we are recruiting additional caseworkers and directing resources to maximise final decision output, as well as improving the evidence-gathering process by revising our data-sharing agreements with other Departments on our forms, guidance and processes.
We also continue to do all we can to raise awareness of the Windrush schemes and encourage all who are eligible to apply. Last year, we launched a national communications campaign and the Windrush community fund, which was designed to reach further and deeper into the communities who were affected. We have now held 180 events, reaching 3,000 people.
Last year, we also published the Wendy Williams “Windrush Lessons Learned Review”, to which a number of Members referred, which laid bare the failings and mistakes that led to the Windrush scandal. Each of the 30 recommendations has been grouped into different themes that are being delivered across the Home Office to ensure the lessons from the review are being applied across the Department. Despite what was asserted, Ms Williams did not say that the Home Office was paying “lip service” to her review, and she will be returning to the Department in September to review our progress. Alongside that, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the permanent secretary are also leading an unprecedented programme of change to ensure the Home Office is representative of every part of the community it serves. Our ambition is to transform the Department into one that puts people before processes, an organisation that has fairness and compassion at the heart of all it does.
The Windrush scandal is a stain on this country’s conscience. We owe it to those who suffered as a result to deliver lasting and meaningful change, and to ensure that nothing like this ever happens again. I am happy to say on Windrush Day, as we celebrate that generation today and hopefully in the years to come, that the Department for Transport is currently investigating whether the anchor from the Windrush can be recovered and restored to become a fitting memorial to that generation, in the hope that we will all aspire to the aspiration of my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) that in the future the colour of our skin will matter no more and no less than the colour of our eyes.

Helen Hayes: I extend my thanks to every right hon. and hon. Member who has spoken in today’s debate. It has been a celebration of the Windrush generation and we have heard again the inspirational stories of people such as Lydia Simmons of Slough, the first black person to be elected mayor in this country. However, much of this debate has rightly been focused on the injustices that so many of the Windrush generation continue to face, the inadequacy of the Government’s response and the work still to do. I welcome, in particular, the contributions of the Father of the House, the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), and of the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), who both acknowledged the shameful, painful reality of racism still experienced today, and I hope the Minister took heed of their remarks. My hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) mentioned the important work of the Windrush Foundation and its chair Arthur  Torrington, and I want to add my support, as I have done many times in this Chamber and in correspondence, to the calls for the national Windrush monument to be located in its rightful place in Windrush Square in Brixton, not at Waterloo station.
Disappointingly, the Minister refused to accept the need for the Windrush scheme to be independently administered. That is tone deaf to the experiences of many who have had to make a claim and completely ignores what victims of the Windrush scandal have said about the re-traumatising effects of having to engage with the same organisation that perpetrated the injustice from which they are seeking redress. I hope that when we celebrate Windrush Day 2022 we will be able to acknowledge meaningful progress in delivering justice for the Windrush generation and ending racism and racial inequality in this country. But there is much more to do and many of us will continue to fight for it.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Windrush Day 2021.

Nigel Evans: I will suspend the House in a moment, but I just want to say, as we go on to the next debate, when Rosie Winterton will be taking over from me, that I am really proud that we have more openly gay LGBT+ Members of Parliament in this Parliament than any other Parliament in the world. We have fought and won many battles—we still have a bit to go—but when I look around the rest of the world and see so many people living in persecution, with stigma and in fear, I know that we also have a battle to fight for them as well. We have a very important debate to come, but we will now suspend for three minutes.
Sitting suspended.

Pride Month

Angela Eagle: I beg to move,
That this House has considered Pride Month.
It is a pleasure to open this cross-party Backbench Business Committee debate as Pride Month 2021 comes to its conclusion. All too sadly, once more coronavirus restrictions have meant that it has been more online than on the streets, and less visible and impactful because of that. Coronavirus has hit the LGBT community especially hard, because it has caused huge disruption in those sectors that often provide employment, as well as closing completely many of the safe social spaces on which the community relies.
Pride Month is a time when the LGBT community can celebrate our diversity, commemorate those who fought to end our oppression, and support those who continue to fight against the ongoing discrimination and bigotry that are sadly still prevalent in our society. This Parliament has made great progress since I was first elected, as I think your predecessor in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, was anxious to say at the end of the last debate. We have transformed ourselves from a virtually LGBT-free legislature into one of the gayest Parliaments in the world—that is often on my mind when I sit on these green Benches waiting to be called. I therefore look forward to contributions to today’s debate from all parts of the House.
It is impossible, however, not to observe that this debate is taking place against a confusing backdrop of simultaneous progress and backlash for LGBT+ people in our own country, and across the world. On the one hand we have the historic and welcome decision by the Methodists to allow same-sex marriage, but on the other we have an increasingly hostile atmosphere for LGBT people on our streets. It demonstrates that while we celebrate the progress made, we cannot take it for granted or give up on the fight for global LGBT rights across the world.
Here in the UK, the cross-party agreement on LGBT rights, which has been such a welcome feature of our politics since 2010, appears to be under some strain. That strain may not be reflected in today’s debate, but it is demonstrated by the Government’s increasing appetite for fomenting divisive culture wars that seek to pit one group in society against another. That emboldens bullies and problematises vulnerable minorities. It generates fear and resentments, which can only do harm. That divisive tactic has especially been directed towards trans people, who are often among the least protected and the most vulnerable in our community.
Theoretical support for LGBT+ rights is of course hugely welcome, but we must judge a Government by their actions as well as their words. An LGBT person here in the UK might have been badly affected by the Government’s decision to end funding for anti-bullying work in schools last November. They might be worried that the Government are intent on rolling back some of the progress already made, by tearing up their 2018 LGBT action plan and disbanding the advisory panel because, in the words of the current Secretary of State responsible for equalities, it was created by a “previous Administration”.
If a person is trans or non-binary, they might be mortified that here in the UK their very existence appears to be up for debate in the name of someone else’s “free speech”, while crucial health support for them is increasingly unavailable. Meanwhile, out on our streets, homophobic hate crimes have soared, increasing by 19% last year, with transphobic hate crimes up 16%. Over the same period the number of prosecutions has plummeted from 20% of reports to a mere 8%. If an LGBT person looks abroad, they might see their Hungarian counterparts being subjected to a section-28 style anti-LGBT law that bans the so-called “promotion of homosexuality”—that has a familiar ring to it—or their Polish counterparts being forced to live in newly established “LGBT free zones”.
Although the Government’s LGBT envoy Lord Herbert has rightly condemned the new Hungarian law, our own Prime Minister’s eagerness to roll out the red carpet in Downing Street for its author Viktor Orbán was an unconvincing way of expressing his official disapproval. The total silence that has accompanied the homophobic baiting of Kim Leadbeater, Labour’s candidate in the Batley and Spen by-election, sends its own signal to those perpetrating the abuse.
To improve on their LGBT credentials, the Government have to make good on the promises they have already made. As a minimum, they must introduce a ban on conversion therapy, with no religious exemptions and no loopholes; progress the long-promised reform of the Gender Recognition Act 2004; and oversee the proper introduction of inclusive sex and relationship education in schools, with robust, proactive guidance. The Government must take action against demonstrations outside schools that are organised to stir up hatred and intimidate children and teachers.
In March this year, we had a very disappointing response from the Minister for Equalities to the petitions debate on banning the abhorrent and abusive practice of conversion therapy. This led to an unprecedented cross-party letter to the Government in support of an outright ban, signed by the LGBT+ groups of eight political parties represented in this House. A full 12 months have passed since the Prime Minister’s pledge to ban conversion therapy. We are told that a Bill is in the works—I sincerely hope one is—but all we have seen are the assurances given to the Evangelical Alliance that “religious freedoms” will be upheld. If the forthcoming Bill creates exemptions for religion, it will not actually constitute a ban, because 50% of conversion therapy takes place in a religious setting.
The leaderships of all the major religions have stated that they are in favour of a ban on conversion therapy, as is the UN. Abuse, coercion, corrective rape and exorcism have no place in a civilised society and no place in acceptable religious practice. The UN independent expert on protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity has concluded that conversion therapy is
“degrading, inhuman and cruel in its very essence”.
The US independent forensic expert group on conversion therapy has concluded:
“All practices attempting conversion are inherently humiliating, demeaning, and discriminatory”,
and that they
“generate profound feelings of shame, guilt self-disgust, and worthlessness”.
It is no wonder that those subjected to conversion therapy often suffer mental health breakdown as a direct result, so what on earth are the Government waiting for? They should now proceed with a complete ban, with no loopholes.
The Government have reneged on their own stated intention of reforming the Gender Recognition Act. Instead, they appear to be much more focused on encouraging the waging of a disgraceful hybrid war on Stonewall because it is trans-inclusive. The Government should concentrate instead on modernising the arrangements around gender recognition to make them more humane.
Trans people are finding themselves under siege, used as an excuse to bring back the same old anti-LGBT tropes, which those of us who are old enough to have experienced them recognise from the 1980s: stirring up fear about predators, safety in bathrooms and, most insultingly of all, the safety of children. This Government seem to have completely forgotten that at the heart of this long-overdue reform are people who are just trying to live their lives.
I am a proud lesbian, a proud feminist and a trans ally, and I see absolutely no contradiction between any of these values. The battle for equal treatment, dignity and human rights for all can be achieved only with empathy and solidarity between those who have been oppressed by discrimination and bigotry and their allies. Change is achieved by working together. That is why some seek to foment fear and division to prevent progress to a fairer society, free of all discrimination.
The Government continue to claim that the UK is a world leader in LGBT rights. For that to be the case, they must stop giving a green light to those stoking fears and isolating an already vulnerable community that feels under siege and increasingly abandoned. The Government must follow international best practice and allow trans and non-binary people to obtain legal gender recognition through a simple administrative process. To address another myth head on, that does not mean that Keith will be able to identify as Kathy whenever they choose and then switch back again. It means that trans people can establish their legal status in a simple process and do the things that the rest of us take for granted, such as getting married in the right gender or having their pension and insurance policies administered in the right gender. The current bureaucratic, demeaning and intrusive process, which involves them having to get doctors to agree that they are suffering from a mental illness and to certify that they have lived in their preferred gender for two years, is no longer fit for purpose. Again, I implore the Government: you promised you would do this, now just get on with it.
On 27 March 2019, this House took a historic decision when it voted by 538 to 21 to approve a set of draft regulations to introduce inclusive sex and relationship education in our schools, putting it on a statutory footing. That guarantees that children are properly equipped for adult life and ensures that they can be supported to live a happy and safe life. The Government must recognise and defeat the challenge posed to Parliament’s intention by the organised demonstrations  outside schools which lie about the content of the lessons and seek to foster panic and hatred, while intimidating children and teachers. They must be robustly dealt with.
We have come a long way in our campaign to ensure that LGBT+ people are a part of our society, with equal rights under the law. We have further to go to ensure that those theoretical rights exist in reality in our country and in the world. I for one will continue to fight until LGBT equality is achieved.

Elliot Colburn: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle). I was proud to co-sign the application for this important debate.
To begin, I wish everyone in this House, in my constituency, in the UK and around the world a very happy Pride indeed. It has not looked the same this year as it has in previous years. We have been moved to online events and we have not been able to have our usual festivities and celebrations, but I hope that from 2022 onwards we can certainly get back to that to celebrate the contribution of LGBT+ people to this country, recognising how far we have come, and acknowledging the work that is still left to do and the progress that is left to be made.
We are now more than 50 years on from the Stonewall riots in the United States and from the decriminalisation of homosexual acts in the United Kingdom. Next year, we will celebrate the 50th anniversary of the first ever Pride rally in the UK, in London. LGBT history, however, stretches far back, not just over the past 50 years, but to the beginning of time itself, as I am sure the Minister knows—by that, I do not mean that the Minister was there at the time and could tell us all about it.
I believe it to be a sign of better times that I can stand here today as a proudly openly gay man in what was until last year, when New Zealand beat us to the post, the gayest Parliament in the world, happily engaged to my fiancé Jed, having grown up with an accepting family, a supportive school, supportive workplaces and in a country that recognises my rights. Indeed, just yesterday, as was mentioned by the hon. Member for Wallasey, we reached yet another milestone with the Methodist Church’s welcome overwhelming support for same-sex marriage in their churches.
During Pride, it is important that we recognise the progress that has been made and celebrate those champions who fought to get us to this point, but it is especially important to recognise that there is still much to do. There are so many issues that it would be important to raise but, in my short contribution today, I cannot do them all justice. However, I want to highlight some of the most pressing.
The first is the need to remember that, while we are lucky to live in a country that does recognise the rights of LGBT+ people in law, to this day, around the world, LGBT+ people face persecution and even the death penalty simply because of their sexuality, gender identity or expression. In some countries, particularly in eastern Europe, in places such as Hungary and Poland, we do seem to be taking a step backwards. So the United Kingdom must remain strong in condemning these abhorrent human rights abuses, and I hope that we can  use our position as the host of that global LGBT+ conference to push that agenda and re-establish that commitment.
We have made great strides in the UK, but far too many LGBT+ people in this country still experience hate crime and discrimination. Since being elected as an MP, I have received a death threat that focused on my sexuality. I had a shocking reminder of that just this week when my gay office manager, Tommy, was spat at and called a “faggot” in the streets. I met members of the LGBT+ community at the Pride reception that the Prime Minister held on Tuesday, where I was sad to hear the story of Josh, who was brutally attacked in Liverpool.
Since 2015, recorded hate crime based on sexual orientation has doubled and hate crime based on gender identity has tripled, but, as we know, so much goes unreported. I know that a review is taking place into hate crime, so I wonder whether the Minister can set out how the review will seek to improve those statistics. No one should feel unsafe to be simply who they are. One way that we can move towards that is by bringing about that all-important ban on LGBT+ conversion therapy in the United Kingdom.
Since being elected as an MP, it has been my privilege, and it has been humbling, to work with colleagues, campaigners and survivors over the past year and a half on trying to bring about that ban and I am delighted that plans to do so were in the Queen’s Speech. As I led the Westminster Hall debate on this issue only a few months ago, I do not want to revisit all of the points that I made there and that were very ably made by the hon. Member for Wallasey. But it does bear repeating that these abhorrent practices have not been consigned to the past; they are happening right now, today, in the United Kingdom. People are being forced to go overseas to undergo some truly abhorrent treatment. We owe it to them, after hearing the heartbreaking stories of those survivors, to secure that ban and I hope that it will be this Parliament that secures it.
I know that the Government are issuing a consultation on this prior to legislation. I would be grateful if we could get an update on the steer and scope of that consultation and on timelines, because every single day that we delay there is a chance of another person being subjected to these practices.
Another area in which we need to make much greater strides is, of course, LGBT+ healthcare. The powerful telling of the HIV/AIDS crisis in the TV series “It’s a Sin” has brought back into sharp focus how far we have come in the treatment of HIV/AIDS. June 2021 marked 40 years since the first cases of HIV were reported. A lot has changed since then in the treatment of HIV/AIDS. It is no longer a death sentence in the United Kingdom. We are now in a position to end new transmissions by 2030 and the Government have committed to that goal, but it will not be easy to achieve it. The action plan must be worthy of its name. Any update that we can have on the date of the publication of that plan will be very welcome.
Elsewhere in the UK, accessing healthcare can still be very difficult, uncomfortable, and, in some cases, even traumatising for LGBT+ people, particularly for the trans community, who face years and years of waiting lists, no support in that time and, often, when they are eventually through the door, a less than satisfactory  service. I hope that we can use this moment here today to take some of the heat out of this debate and discussion, because having an increasingly polarised debate helps no one whatsoever. We need to be leading from the front. Sadly, politics, media and academia have been responsible for a lot of the polarising discussions that we have been having not just in the UK, but across the world. It is our responsibility to try to calm that back down, have a sensible discussion and do what is right by those thousands of people who are just trying to live their lives.
Pride is more than just a four-week period of parties, parades, festivals, and companies changing their logos in the western world, but not in the middle east. Pride is a shared experience, but also a deeply individual one. To me, Pride is about exactly what it says on the tin: it is about pride; about being proud. It is a seemingly simple notion to feel proud in your own skin, to be proud of who you are, but one that, sadly, way too many LGBT+ people in this country and around the world are still unable to feel in themselves. Instead, they live with confusion, anguish, or even fear. It is for this reason—because there are those who live in fear, those who suffer violence simply because of who they are, and those who in the most tragic of circumstances believe that they would be better off dead—that Pride is still so important and still needed to this day.

Dan Carden: It means a great deal to me to speak in this debate.
If I could give one piece of advice to a young person today, it would be this. Be proud of who you are and who you choose to love. You may have had the frightening realisation that you feel different from the expectations that society has for you. You may be questioning your relationships, your gender or your sexuality. It is frightening. There is good reason to be fearful. Coming out is scary and you might suffer because of it. But what you probably have not been told is that hiding who you are into adulthood will cause you far more suffering anyway.
Just growing up LGBT, with the cumulative effect of the daily denials, the constant fear of being found out and the internalised shame, causes a deep trauma. Despite social progress, and despite many of us never having experienced direct discrimination or abuse, rates of depression, loneliness, substance abuse and suicide among gay men are many, many times higher than across society, each of these in turn causing more shame, more fear and more trauma.
That is what happened to me. It took me a long time to admit that I was struggling with my mental health and alcohol addiction. Actually, it took repeated interventions from the people who really love me. I did not know, or I denied, that I had a problem. I suppressed my emotions, as I had learned to do as a kid, and I told myself things were fine. Only looking back now have I been able to accept that in my 20s I twice nearly lost my life to alcohol; I was saved only by the actions of others. Drinking was destroying my body. It was damaging to me, to my relationships and in so many other ways.
Alcohol addiction is not just about drinking every day or drunkenness. For me, it was about losing who I was over a long period of time. It was desperate isolation.  It was shutting down my personal life using a drug, alcohol, to feel better but ultimately to escape and give up on living. I now know that it has blighted most of my adult life. Fortunately, I have a mother who would protect me at all costs, a father who is the most generous, selfless man I have ever known, a brother who supported me through all this without judgment, and friends who quite literally saved my life.
I am now in the third year of recovery, and I am proud of it. Like so many in the recovery community, I am happy, I am healthy, I love my life, I have a wonderful, loving partner, and I appreciate everything that I have. But it took AA meetings, psychotherapy and counselling to get here, and, honestly, to stay here takes commitment and daily determination. I am in a privileged position. I am all too aware that not everybody makes it. Addiction is fatal if not treated. I have gone from not recognising addiction in myself for so long to seeing it everywhere, and doing its worst damage in the most deprived communities. Addiction is killing more people and ruining more lives than ever. It has killed Members of this House, yet we would still rather hide its ugly reality.
I hope that my openness today can help challenge the stigma that stops so many people asking for help, and nothing would mean more to me than turning the pain I have been through, and that I have put my family and loved ones through, into meaningful change. I know I have to be authentic if I am going to do that. Pride is about celebrating who we are without shame. In the end, it is a simple choice: choose to hide, or choose to live. My advice is to choose to live.

David Mundell: What a hugely impressive, moving contribution we have just heard from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden)—a really brave thing to do, but important, because a lot of people outside this place do not think that the people within it address and deal with these issues themselves. It is really important, but it doubles down on a bit of guilt that I personally have, because I feel that I have found it very easy since I came out. That is because of the work and efforts of so many other people, and other people who have heard what the hon. Gentleman has had to say today will have their journeys impacted and made easier by it.
I do not think there is any definitive way to come out, and we must not in any way try to prescribe what people should do. Everybody has to do what is right for them, and they have to make their own decisions, but I have no regrets. I benefited from a loving family, great friends, and the supportive working environment here. There was already a strong cross-party LGBT+ community within Parliament, and it was extremely supportive. Coming out did not seem to stand in the way of what I then regarded as a political career, either, because I was the first openly gay Conservative Cabinet member, and I was hugely honoured when my then Cabinet colleague Justine Greening subsequently said to me that I had been the inspiration for her own coming out.
Only one constituent has raised the issue negatively with me face to face on the doorstep, although I realise that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) set out, that is not the same for everyone. However, we do now face the well of  poison that is social media, and I am sad to say that homophobia is a real part of that. I try not to pay too much attention to what is said there: like, I assume, so many people here today, I do not read a lot of what is said about myself, but sometimes we do have to push back. For me, that occasion was when a blogger called “Wings Over Scotland” asserted that gay people should not have children, with particular reference to my older son, who is a Member of the Scottish Parliament. Among others, Kezia Dugdale, the former Labour leader in the Scottish Parliament, spoke up for us, and she, for her support, ended up being sued by the self-same blogger who had put up the article. The matter went to court in a well-documented case in Scotland, but I am pleased to say that he lost. I regard that as a victory, at least in Scotland, for those willing to stand up against homophobia, and I remain particularly grateful to Kez for her support.
As we have heard already, my positive experience is not shared by everyone, and for many it is still hard to come to terms with their identity. Although we have a record number of LGBT+ MPs, I am sure there are others who have chosen not to come out. As I said in my initial remarks, it is always a personal decision, and there is no one approach or right answer as to how to do it. What is not acceptable is that people feel unable to come out because of fear of abuse or discrimination. I think that particularly we as parliamentarians have a duty to ensure that sexuality is never a barrier for people who wish to pursue a career in public office.
Of course, this is not just about MPs or public office; it is our job to stand up for the young people bullied at school, those discriminated against whatever their workplace, and particularly, as the hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle) very eloquently set out, the trans community, who continue to experience so much discrimination and inequality and have their human rights abused. I strongly believe that education is our most powerful tool to bring about real change—and I particularly welcome this Parliament’s effort in providing more LGBT resources for school students to develop their thinking about LGBTQ+ rights, equality and legislation—but there is much more that needs to be done in that regard.
I acknowledge particular initiatives such as the TIE—Time for Inclusive Education—initiative in Scotland, which has done so much to promote the need for LGBT+ education in our schools, and School Diversity Week, which was an initiative of, among others, Paul Brand, the ITV reporter. I particularly want to commend Paul because I think he is a great ambassador for the community, especially in moving into the position where he is now. He once told me that if people were LGBT in the media, it was fine if they were an arts and culture reporter, but they were not allowed to do serious news, but Paul has absolutely demonstrated that that is just not the case.
As I have said, as MPs we have a responsibility to call out discrimination and highlight the injustices that members of the community face, but—this has already been touched on—not just in the UK. I see this as an important part of my role as a member of the executive committee of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. I hope that we will be able to push LGBT+ equality and human rights up the Commonwealth agenda,  delivering better rights for LGBT+ communities around the world. It is absolutely and completely unacceptable that in some Commonwealth countries the death penalty still applies for homosexuality, and that in others LGBT+ people are routinely harassed or arrested by the authorities. As the Terrence Higgins Trust and others have pointed out in relation to combating HIV, the criminalisation of LGBT+ people in many countries is actually one reason why those from the community receive such poor treatment or no treatment for their HIV.
I particularly commend the initiative of my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt), who, as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on global LGBT rights, many of whose members are participating today, is promoting a scheme that will link Members of this Parliament with groups in countries around the world where the LGBT community is under threat. I look forward to playing a part in that scheme.
I echo much of what the hon. Member for Wallasey and my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington said about conversion therapy. The debate that we took part in was totally unsatisfactory; I hope that it was then a catalyst for the action that we have seen from the Government—obviously, that now needs to be followed through. One development since then that I particularly welcome is the appointment of Lord Herbert as the Prime Minister’s envoy. Few people have done more in this place and elsewhere to promote LGBT+ rights around the world than Lord Herbert. I am convinced that he will be a force for good.
I want to finish on a positive note, about this Parliament. I was asked to write an article during history month about the role of parliamentarians and Parliament itself. What I found out was that since I was first elected in 2005, Parliament itself has made great strides to become more inclusive and diverse. The House of Commons and Parliamentary Digital Service have a higher representation of LGBT+ staff—at 5.6%, as of 2020—than the civil service, the UK or London. They have become a really good working environment for those of us in the LGBT+ community. The efforts of Parliament’s LGBT+ workplace equality network, ParliOUT, which recently celebrated its 10-year anniversary, have played a huge role in achieving that. On the back of that, it has been especially encouraging to see so many LGBT+ colleagues elected at the 2019 general election. As is the theme of Pride, I was myself very, very proud to be one of them.

Mhairi Black: The UK once played a major role in exporting homophobia around the world, but over the last decade, I am glad to say, we have actually had a relatively positive story to tell. Previous speakers have talked eloquently of the progress that we have made, but this Pride month it is important for us to take a snapshot of what it is currently like to be LGBTQ in the UK.
As we have already heard, there is evidence today that we are more likely to self-harm, to feel suicidal and to have negative experiences in accessing healthcare. We are more likely to be a victim of a crime, but less likely to feel safe enough to report it to the police. There is no shortage of areas where we still have work to do. But a trans person is even more likely to experience everything I have just listed—and worse. That is because over the  last five years there has been an organised and concerted international campaign against the trans community, and the UK is no exception.
Where 40 years ago the media, the religious right, and the institutional powers would spread fear and distrust about homosexuals, today we are witnessing the same tactics being recycled and deployed against the trans community. We know this because the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation published a study just this year looking at the evolution of extremism in the first 100 days of the Biden Administration, and it found that:
“Transphobia has long been one of the most major and ubiquitous narratives around which the far right mobilises… Transphobia should be recognised as a security concern.”
We also know it because the Southern Poverty Law Centre in the US noted an annual right-wing, fundamentalist event called the Values Voter Summit, where transphobia was openly discussed as a tactic to be deployed, because rallying against homosexuals was not working any more. In 2017, one of the far-right panellists said:
“Trans and gender identity are a tough sell, so focus on gender identity to divide and conquer…trans activists need the gay rights movement to help legitimize them…If you separate the T from the alphabet soup, we’ll have more success”.
Is it not interesting that this was around the same time that we saw a swathe of online Twitter accounts seeking to establish themselves in the UK and purporting to speak for LGB people against trans rights, especially when studies consecutively show that LGB people overwhelming support the trans community?
That panellist went on to identify a range of potential allies outside the fundamentalist right who could potentially be most effectively drawn in. The list includes
“women, sexual assault survivors…ethnic minorities who…value modesty, economically challenged children…and…children with anxiety disorders”.
As with all far-right recruitment tactics, a minority has been targeted, and hatred and distrust are stoked against them by preying upon people’s fears—in this instance, by projecting a manipulative and false narrative that there is conflict between trans rights and women’s rights, when the truth is that we are battling the same problems and the same patriarchal beast. Trans people are just as—if not more—likely to experience poverty, crime and sexual violence.
Looking at the UK, we can see what was advised at this right-wing event playing out. We see self-proclaimed organisations and blogs, which have already been mentioned, projecting things that are factually and scientifically incorrect. We see trauma and poverty being treated as a recruitment tool. We see attacks against women’s organisations and rape support crisis centres for daring to be trans inclusive. But worse yet, we see a media in this country that continually platform and project these hateful, disproportionate views, uncritically.
I have always been clear that in order to progress, we have to give people the space to educate themselves and ask the ignorant questions without fear of repercussion, otherwise nobody moves forward, but this has to be done respectfully and on the terms of those who are affected most. That is not what is happening with the trans community, and that alone speaks volumes.
More personally, my office and I have been left in a position for years whereby our workload has been increased not just by world events, but by people—not just my own distressed LGBT constituents, but people from all across the UK—who have contacted me because they are too frightened to contact their own MP. These are constituents of Tory MPs, Labour MPs, and, I am ashamed to say, SNP MPs. I have ran out of excuses to give them. There are numerous parliamentary inquiries and reports that make clear the expert legal and medical advice, and explain clearly the lived experience and reality for trans people. It is there for anybody who wants to educate themselves on the matter.
Be in no doubt, we are living within a moral panic right now, and it is being fanned by organised disinformation and online radicalisation. If we as legislators capitulate to it, all we do is send an international message that disinformation works.
My final remarks are to trans and queer people directly. This is an ugly and shameful time for all of us, but that shame is not yours to feel or yours to carry. In the same way that we teach young people about gay history now and they are horrified when they hear of our past treatment, so, too, will future children be when they find out how trans people were treated today. This will pass and, in the meantime, know that there are allies everywhere that are with you and are fighting for you publicly and behind the scenes, and as our community is so often having to tell people, we are going absolutely nowhere.

Nickie Aiken: First, I thank the hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle), my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) and the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson) for securing this debate, and I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) for his powerful personal contribution to it. I think we were all very touched by his words in this House.
LGBTQ heritage is everywhere in central London in my constituency of the Cities of London and Westminster. It is embedded in the buildings, in the landscapes and all around us, as well as in the significant contribution made by the personalities connected to those landmarks. I feel truly honoured to represent an area with such a rich LGBTQ social and cultural history, from the west end, Covent Garden and Piccadilly Circus to the incredible cultural hub that is Soho. In fact, the first gay bar in Britain in the modern sense was The Cave of the Golden Calf, which opened in 1912 in Heddon Street in the heart of the west end—[Interruption.] I think a couple of my fellow Members may have been to the opening.
With Pride Month drawing to a close, I want to put on record how incredibly proud I am of our community for rallying together to celebrate. Despite the great challenges faced by LGBTQ people during covid-19, one thing that the crisis has shown is the value and power of community. I am proud that when I became leader of Westminster City Council, one of the first appointments that I made was to establish a lead member for the LGBTQ community. I am delighted that Councillor Ian Adams, who I appointed, retains that position today.  Owing to his success of championing LGBTQ rights  in London, Ian has won the global OUTstanding LGBTQ role model award, and I am sure that the whole House will join me in celebrating that momentous achievement.
Of course, in normal times, we are so fortunate here in London to have such a wealth of celebrations during Pride Month, not least the great London Pride march, which, last time that it was held, in 2019, attracted an estimated 1.5 million spectators. I took part in that Pride march. It was my first and by no means my last; I was part of the Westminster City Council parade group. I am not sure if there is one in Parliament, but perhaps if there is not, we should organise a cross-party parliamentary group from both this place and the other place to take part in the next Pride march.
Even without the scale of events we are used to, I remain proud of my constituency’s LGBTQ history and how people here have still made sure that we have had a really great Pride Month. It is this fortitude that represents the ultimate triumph of London. After all, although the vibrant festivities remain a key part of our celebrations, what this year has afforded us is the time to reflect, remember and regalvanise our efforts to support the LGBTQ community. On this, I wholeheartedly support the Government in their ambitions to ensure that the UK remains one of the most open and tolerant countries in the world. Like other Members, I also welcome the Prime Minister’s announcement that the UK will host its first ever LGBTQ conference in June next year, coinciding with the 50th anniversary of the first ever London Pride march. It is my hope that here we can bring into sharp focus a fresh discussion on legislative reform to tackle violence and discrimination, and ensure equal access to public services, including health services, for LGBTQ+ people.
I also want to take this opportunity to welcome the Government’s landmark ban on conversion therapy. Our special envoy on LGBTQ+ rights, Lord Herbert, is correct when he says:
“It is a cruel practice which has no place in a modern society”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 May 2021; Vol. 812, c. 607.]
Especially in London, this Pride Month is wholly different from previous years, but it still serves as a tribute to all those who have fought for an equal society where people can love freely and live in peace and without inequality. We stand on the shoulders of giants and we thank them for all they faced to get to where we are today. Even in this place, I was shocked to discover, it was only 19 years ago, in 2002, that Sir Alan Duncan became the first sitting Conservative MP to voluntarily announce that he is gay.
I wish everyone a happy Pride Month. May the spirit of love continue throughout the year. As a former member of my constituency, the brilliant Oscar Wilde, once said:
“Keep love in your heart. A life without it is like a sunless garden”.

James Murray: I am very pleased to speak in this debate, which was opened so strongly by my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle). I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) for his deeply honest and brave contribution, with its incredibly powerful message.
What drives me and so many others in politics is a determination to make sure that the future will be better than what has gone before. In so many ways, the struggle for LGBT+ rights is one that shows us that things can get better. I do not mean that they have got better for everyone, either in our country or around the world, and progress should never be taken for granted or assumed to be permanent; but as a testament to the power of politics and activism to change things for the better, the LGBT+ rights struggle is one that has given me and many others hope.
In the year I was born, there were no openly LGBT+ MPs. The following year, Chris Smith came out. And 35 years later the most recent general election returned more lesbian, gay and bisexual MPs than any other Parliament around the world. I have spoken to Chris Smith over the years, and I have always been incredibly grateful to him for his personal support and for being one of the giants on whose shoulders I and so many others stand.
So many of the basic rights that we have today—from being able to get married, to being protected from discrimination—were not in our country’s law when I first began to understand the problems caused by their absence. Yet a coalition of campaigners, activists, trade unionists and progressive politicians made it possible to change our country for the better. As a teenager, I remember the Labour Government abolishing section 28, which had caused so much harm. When I was in my 20s, we introduced the Equality Act 2010, which made discrimination and harassment on the basis of sex and gender identity illegal. In my 30s, our votes were crucial in winning marriage equality.
By the grace of fortune, my story of coming out as a teenager is one of brilliantly supportive family and friends. My story as a young gay man is one of acceptance in this great city that I was born in and love—from my first London Pride parade, volunteering as an access steward in 2005, to joining the Mayor of London as one of his deputies in leading the parade just over a decade later. And my story as someone in his late 30s is one of representing the area I grew up in, where my partner and I have now made our home.
It is not true, however, to say that I have avoided homophobia in my life—from the more blatant incidents I can remember, to those moments when I was younger when I bit my tongue or did not feel able to call out what someone else had said. Crucially, while we should be thankful to all those who have fought for the progress we have made, the fight for equality for everyone in our country and around the world must continue with urgency and conviction. Far too many young people have families who will refuse to accept who they are if they come out. Members of the trans community suffer some of the worst violence and hate crime in society, and they need our solidarity and support. Around the world, the law in 69 countries still criminalises homosexuality. Hungary shows us how the law can move backward. Here, the abhorrent practice of LGBT+ conversion therapy remains legal.
As we have heard, conversion therapy has no place in modern Britain and should already have been banned. A survey in 2018 found that well over half of the people subject to this practice had suffered mental health issues as a result, with a third having attempted suicide. The Government promised to outlaw conversion therapy  three years ago. Their prevarication is unjustifiable and it raises deep suspicion among those of us who want a comprehensive and effective ban to be in place without delay. There must be no more excuses.
As an MP, some of the messages from my constituents that I remember most vividly have been from members of the LGBT+ community, particularly young people who have said that my being their MP and talking about being gay encouraged them as they learned to understand their identities. That is an important part of what made me so keen to speak here today. We know that LGBT+ people can face greater mental ill health because of homophobia, biphobia and transphobia, as well as difficult experiences of coming out and rejection, and we know that young people can be particularly vulnerable. Almost a quarter of young people at risk of homelessness are LGBT+, usually because their families reject them, and half of LGBT+ young people have said they fear that expressing their identity to family members would lead to them being evicted.
If that promise of politics, a determination to make the future better than what has gone before, is to mean anything, we must continue to fight for LGBT+ equality here and around the world, and particularly to stand up now for the next generation. Pride Month is a moment to be motivated by knowing we can change the world for the better, but not to rest for a moment in making that happen.

Crispin Blunt: This debate has been marked by incredibly powerful contributions, not least from the hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray), whom I have the privilege of following in this debate. Even before we began, the statement by Mr Deputy Speaker from the Chair sent its own message about the importance of this debate and the example that this, the mother of Parliaments, can show around the world to other Parliaments about the progress that will be made as human societies become more comfortable with people being able to be themselves; not seeing that as a threat to order in their societies, but as a positive asset in the richness that can be brought to the life of a whole country and a whole nation, as well as the enormous enrichment that then comes from the individual being able to live their life as they wish.
All of us taking part in this debate so far have been on that journey. My experience is similar to my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell). That is the reason why both of us are contributing to this debate and making it an important part of our contribution to Parliament as long as we have the privilege of remaining here. It is why Mr Deputy Speaker, in closing the previous debate and teeing this one up, made the statement he did. I am very proud that in Pride Month we all can be so proud of the contribution that this Parliament has made and will make.
It is my pleasure and privilege to chair the all-party parliamentary group on global LGBT+ rights and to do that with the support of the hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle), who opened the debate so powerfully. I associate myself with everything she  said. She is quite right to point out how much needs to be done and how, even in the United Kingdom, the atmosphere has not necessarily changed for the better over the last couple of years. I want to look forward. I think this Administration have now started to grip the issue and perhaps, in due course, ground will be made up on one or two things that slid in the last year or so —in particular on the misfired response to the consultation on the Gender Recognition Act 2004.
I want to try to focus on the positive elements of what we can do going forward, and particularly on the parliamentary liaison scheme that was referred to so generously by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale. However, the debate has been so dominated by the speech of enormous courage from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden). He is right to link the trauma that can be found in the whole process of coming out with, too often, the problematic use of drugs to manage that trauma. Trauma is also associated with the addiction that goes with that to make one feel better. In his case, the drug he turned to was alcohol, and he was brave about the journey he has been on to manage that addiction.
I want to refer to the other issue to which I am principally devoting my time: reform of our drugs policy. There is a link to the trauma that colleagues have been through, because so many people manage trauma by a problematic use of drugs, whether legal ones such as alcohol or illegal ones. Frankly, we are in a real mess with our drugs laws and drugs policy in this country. That is not new—it has been in a process of development for more than 60 years—and perhaps, rather like a frog not noticing the temperature of the water gradually rising around it, the water is now boiling fiercely and thousands of our fellow citizens are dying needlessly as a consequence of our drugs policy. As a consequence, there are a terrifying number of victims of crime who need not be in that position. However—this is important for the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton and the lesson he gave us—there are huge opportunities that we have missed as well.
In our rush—the world’s rush—to prohibit drugs that, with evidence, sounded as though they might be dangerous, we have prohibited classes of drugs such as cannabis and the psychedelics with no proper cost-benefit and risk analysis in evidential terms and therefore put science and research back 50 years. There is now  really exciting research about treatment for addiction.  The psychotherapy through alcoholics anonymous and others that the hon. Member referred to can now be reinforced through microdosing treatments including methylenedioxymethamphetamine, lysergic acid diethylamide, dimethyltryptamine and, in particular, psilocybin, which open up the prospect of dealing with addiction, trauma and depression. Millions of people could benefit from that treatment. We are on the verge of a great step forward in mental health treatments if only we get our laws right in this House. I hope the Government will attend to this with due dispatch and open up their stated position to lead in this field, be a bioscience leader and have evidence-based policy.
This debate is obviously about Pride, and I hope that with the development of the parliamentary liaison scheme over the rest of this Parliament, we will be able to have pride in the achievement that we will make in contributing  to the advancement around the world of people having the right to, and being able to, be themselves in their own societies.
This idea is based on an experience I had in 2014, courtesy of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, which sponsored a visit for me to Kenya. Other colleagues at the time had dropped out of that visit so I was on my own and able to focus on my priorities, terrifically supported by the British high commission. The Kaleidoscope Trust helped me visit activist groups in Nairobi. They were in pretty interesting parts of Nairobi, it has to be said, because they are not very public in the community there, then or now.
The trip enabled me to meet newly elected Kenyan parliamentarians, who privately were much more sympathetic to advancing LGBT rights than they dared to be publicly because of the control of the public sphere, particularly by the Churches. I was also able to meet the Kenya Human Rights Commission, courtesy of a great conference put on by our high commission, which was trying to advance the position of LGBT people, particularly through campaigns around the treatment of HIV/AIDS.
Bringing all those links together, I was able to quietly enable the activists to be put in touch with those Members of Parliament who were likely to be sympathetic—if not publicly, at least privately—and have those conversations. I also had a conversation with the Speaker of the Kenyan Parliament through the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association visit, partly to request and receive the assurance that the “stone the gays” Bill, which was in the hands of three radical MPs who had been recently elected, was never going to see the light of day and besmirch the reputation of Kenya in quite the same way as had gone on with their neighbours, Uganda, with similar legislation. In those ways, I believe I was able to make a positive contribution, and that was the kernel of the idea that I put to colleagues with the parliamentary liaison scheme.
For however long colleagues serve and the APPG continues to exist and support the parliamentary liaison scheme, one colleague, either in this House or the other place, will take on the responsibility of being a point of liaison for the activist groups in countries overseas and for individual jurisdictions where being LGBT is either criminalised or people are under active oppression. That person can then enable those links between those activist groups who are bravely, heroically, promoting the case for change in those countries, along with the British mission in the country concerned—whether  it is a high commission or an embassy—and the parliamentarians. Through that, we can have that conversation directly with our colleagues, and many of us can use our experiences to say that they ought to be on the right side of history and understand that sexuality is not a choice.
As soon as we have achieved that part of the argument, the duties of everyone as a parliamentarian to their constituents are clear, wherever they are in the world—people who have a minority sexuality are just as deserving of their time and of attention to their rights as anyone else.
That simple point, made by one parliamentarian to another, can help open up the conversation with the local representatives in the country about how to face down the press and the Churches, if they are taking the  wrong position, and how to use the law or constitution of those nations, which will often guarantee the freedom of individuals and their rights under international treaties or anything else, to enable the position to be advanced. All that will need a degree of time and resources, but I am so delighted that about 90 colleagues in both Houses have so far volunteered to take part.
I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) will be replying to this debate—indeed, it may be the first time he has spoken from the Front Bench—and I hope that through the overseas development assistance budget, the Government will enable us to bring that sense of freedom to so many hundreds of millions of people, by getting serious and making a reality of Britain’s leadership in the promotion of LGBT+ rights around the world.
One is well aware of the cuts to the ODA budget, and I am delighted that we are going to return to 0.7% at some stage. I am thrilled that last November, the Prime Minister confirmed from the Dispatch Box that in this place we are going to make a reality of being a global leader. Even with a cut budget, that would mean spending in the order of £40 million a year on global LGBT+ rights, and the benefit in terms of the richness of the soul and of the spirit in being able to be oneself is, as many Members present will testify, incalculable.

Rosie Winterton: Order. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to bring his remarks to an end fairly shortly. I would like to get everybody in and he has had 15 minutes so far.

Crispin Blunt: My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker. Of course I will do that. In conclusion—I was about to do this anyway—will my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green confirm that we will deliver as a Government on the commitments undertaken? That will give us the capacity to lead globally on LGBT rights in a way that will also work well with the parliamentary liaison scheme. A decent proportion of that money should be spent through embassies and the missions in-country, because every jurisdiction is difficult and there is a challenge faced by LGBT people globally. In that way, we can make our British missions overseas more effective in advancing the rights of LGBT people globally. Our message will be delivered much more effectively if every ambassador and high commissioner who represents the United Kingdom in countries where people like us are criminalised or actively oppressed, can bring to bear resources in whatever way is appropriate to support local organisations and legal challenges, and to support the shaping of the media debate around achieving the “right to be me”.

Liz Saville-Roberts: I am more than proud to follow the hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt). I found every minute of his speech fascinating and inspiring, just as I did the powerful and courageous speeches that preceded me in this debate.
“What was important was the liberty of us all to live as we wished to live, to love however we wanted to love”.
Those are the words of the author, historian and journalist Jan Morris, who was an important figure in culture life and to the LGBT community in Wales and internationally. She lived in Llanystumdwy in the constituency I am  proud to serve. Sadly, Jan passed away last year, but her words serve to remind us of why Pride Month is so important. It is a chance to celebrate, affirm and remind ourselves that despite the progress, LGBT people still face significant barriers.
In Wales, hate crimes based on sexual orientation and trans identity are on the rise, there are long waiting lists to access the Welsh gender service, and LGBT people still face health inequalities. In Westminster, the Government have been slow to act, and I echo the calls made by other Members for the Conservatives to fulfil the promise they made in 2018 to bring forward a legislative ban on so-called conversion therapy. This must include a ban on children being taken out of the UK for conversion therapy abroad and on the advertising and promotion of such abhorrent practices.
I also add my support to the calls for urgent action on reform of the Gender Recognition Act. It is yet another example of the jagged edge of devolution that although trans and non-binary people in Wales should be able to access a streamlined, de-medicalised process based on self-declaration and in line with international best practice, we do not have the levers—the means—necessary to introduce such vital changes in Wales.
Given the broken promises on conversion therapy and meaningful reform of the GRA, it is no surprise that the UK Government are now pushing ahead with breaking their legally binding promise on international aid. The decision has resulted in an 80% cut in funding for vital UN programmes that support people who suffer with AIDS and HIV, condemning people to avoidable deaths and risking decades of progress.
The cut to international aid should be seen in the context of increasing hostility against LGBT people and activists around the globe. A report by Amnesty International shows a global surge in attacks against human rights defenders. Amnesty has documented numerous Pride marches that have been cancelled or at which demonstrators have been vulnerable to attacks or even attacked by counter-protesters, violating their right to peaceful assembly. When will the UK Government publish a comprehensive strategy setting out how they will improve support and protection for human rights around the world and particularly, of course, for LGBT defenders in countries where their sexual or gender identity is still criminalised?
One such country is Senegal, with which I am really proud to say—especially after the hon. Member for Reigate spoke so coherently about this earlier—I have been partnered by the parliamentary liaison scheme run by the APPG on global LGBT+ rights, which I congratulate on all its work in that respect. In Senegal, same-sex sexual activity between adults—referred to in law as an “unnatural” act—is punishable with up to five years in prison. During the 2019 presidential elections, LGBT rights activists voiced concerns about politicians using homophobia—that ugly card—to gain political support.
LGBT people in Senegal face increasing levels of discrimination and stigmatisation. At a rally in the capital Dakar last month, demonstrators called for it to be made illegal to identify as a gay man. In the weeks that have followed, activists say that there has been a   worrying increase in violent attacks on gay men. I urge those at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to make representations to their counterparts in Senegal on this matter, and to support and assist co-operation between LGBT activists and members of the Senegalese Government to secure meaningful change.
Finally, I look forward to using my role in Westminster and the theatre that we have through Parliament to make as much difference as possible to people’s lives around the world. In that respect, we must do the best we can for our fellow human beings.

Peter Gibson: It is a privilege to speak in this debate as we mark the end of Pride Month. Yesterday, I was delighted to attend Longfield Academy to meet members of the SMILE group who have produced artwork to mark Pride, alongside Darlington’s deputy mayor and our town’s LGBT champion.
Pride flags are now a common fixture of almost every organisation in June. That is an important measure of how far we have come as a society, celebrating diversity; embracing acceptance, tolerance and understanding; and recalling the struggles that our LGBT community have had and the battles still to be won, both here and abroad,
Pride marches grew out of the Stonewall riots in New York, and the Stonewall bar in Greenwich Village in New York remains a place of pilgrimage for LGBT visitors. It seems hard to imagine that a fairly small bar could become the catalyst for a worldwide movement that has brought about so much change and freedom around the world.
For some, including me, Pride is something deeply personal: it is a public display of recognition of our worth and dignity as individuals, when for so many years we were criminalised and did not enjoy the same rights and protections as others. Every day I am reminded of the battles and struggles we have overcome. Indeed, my being in this House as an openly gay man, among many others, is an indicator of how far we have come. There is not a gay Conservative who has not had the shame of section 28 thrown at them in debate. Although we cannot forget this party’s past, I am proud of how far we have come to now be the party of gay marriage. Section 28 and its impact on our community might now be in the past, but we should be mindful of the steps being taken in Hungary that, sadly, reflect very similar provisions. I was in secondary school in the late 1980s and suffered elements of homophobic bullying, and although the spectre of that Act may have hung over them I have nothing but praise for the supportive pastoral care given to me by teachers such Dorothy Granville.
This August, I will be celebrating 13 years since my civil partnership, which was an important milestone in my life and a day on which my partner and I fondly reflect. For many there just a short time after the law had changed, including my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill), it was their first attendance at such an event. Since that time, many thousands of couples have celebrated civil partnerships and marriages, with records indicating that there are now already more than 100,000 same-sex marriages.
However, much still remains to be done. I am proud to be part of these diverse Conservative Benches, with many openly gay colleagues in this place doing the job they love, free to love the person they do, and free from the fear that will have been experienced by our predecessors, who lived in fear of being outed. This Conservative Government are tackling the scourge and abuse that is conversion therapy. That such practices still exist in our free and modern society should be a warning to all that dark forces are never far away.
Solidarity with the trans community is important too. The “T” in LGBT is just as important to our family and to my family as the “L”, the “G” and the “B”. As I learned of my nephew Luke’s transition and his coming out as trans, I am reminded of the same journey of fear, acceptance, love and celebration that gay men and women go through. We may live in enlightened times, but there is always more to do. Pride, the rainbow flag, is a celebration of our diversity and a symbol of how far we have come, but it is a challenge to those countries around the world that do not share our love, tolerance and respect for the entire LGBT community.
Finally, I want to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for appointing Lord Herbert to the position of his special envoy on LGBT rights. He will lead the first ever global LGBT conference next year, here, during Pride Month. We can as a country be rightly proud of how far we have come and what we are doing, but we must not forget that for many, especially those abroad, there is still a very, very long way to go.

John Nicolson: Let us consider these words:
“People can’t, unhappily, invent their mooring posts, their lovers and their friends, anymore than they can invent their parents. Life gives these and also takes them away and the great difficulty is to say Yes to life.”
So wrote the late, great James Baldwin in his much lauded 1956 novel “Giovanni's Room”, in which the author writes profoundly of the rife gay shame of his time. I am so pleased to have secured this debate with my friend the hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle). We have heard some wonderful, deeply moving contributions.
For the past month, we have been celebrating Pride. What a contrast Pride is to the shame taught to gay kids for so much of the century in which every one of us here today was born. This shame was much of the source of much of the suffering our LGBT+ communities endured. That enduring stigma forced many lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans people into the closet. For many, living a lie, however painful, was safer than living openly with the truth. Decriminalisation in England and Wales in 1967, and in Scotland in 1980, laid the groundwork for change. Even after decriminalisation, many homophobic laws remained on the statute book and homophobic attitudes were commonplace in society, which entrenched the inequality faced by LGBT people.
Since the turn of the millennium, we have seen further progress towards our overall pursuit of equality. My Turing Bill—the Sexual Offences (Pardons Etc) Bill—which sought to pardon all those convicted of sexual offences no longer on the statute book was, sadly, filibustered by a Conservative Minister, despite the Government’s promise  to support it. The SNP Scottish Government, however, picked up my Bill and passed it with all-party support at Holyrood. It is a source of great pride to me and, I think, to the First Minister. This year, too, we have seen a long-awaited law reform. Only two weeks ago, the blood donor ban, which prevented so many men from donating, was finally lifted.
Huge advances have been made at home, but LGBT people live in great peril abroad. Hungary’s recent introduction of its version of clause 28 drags civil rights backwards in the very heart of the European Union. Russia under Putin is a hellish place for gay people to live, and 69 countries round the world still criminalise homosexuality. Half of them are in Africa. On the roll call of shame, Iran and Saudi Arabia still have state-sanctioned murder for consensual gay love.
We must not be complacent at home, however. Older LGBT people are more likely to be socially isolated so, during the pandemic, many have felt that they have nowhere to turn and no one to turn to. We know, too, that young LGBT people bullied at home are more likely to become homeless.
Also, while our legal rights have seemed increasingly enshrined, as other speakers have noted, an onslaught against our trans siblings has been unleashed over the past year by social conservatives, importing the cultural wars from the United States, amplified by social media and whipped up by the right-wing press. The transphobic bullies in the sinister LGB Alliance and elsewhere claim that they represent ordinary voters, but, as we saw in the Scottish elections, when they emerge from behind their keyboards they get trounced at the ballot box: 0.5% percent for the Scottish Family party and, for the Alba party, 1.666%—a significant number, surely.
The future is full of promise. Young people hate intolerance and they hate bigotry. They have gay friends, gay teachers and gay role models. The TIE—or Time for Inclusive Education—campaign does wonderful work in schools. It is a world away from the society in which I grew up in the 1970s. While we on the SNP Benches find much to criticise this Parliament about, I will end on a proud note: my party has more openly elected LGBT members than any other parliamentary party in the world, and our very gayness has made Westminster the second gayest Parliament in the world.

Jessica Morden: I am pleased to be able to make a short contribution to this debate just after the end of Pride Month, not least—if I do absolutely nothing else—to pay huge tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) for sharing his experiences and his story in a way that will help other people to make their lives easier. What on earth can be better than that in this place? He has done and will do many great things in this place, but his speech today is a parliamentary life well spent in itself. I thank him.
I want to make a very short contribution, because a lot of hon. Members want to say important things. I thank people for volunteering, campaigning and working in my part of Wales to make other people’s lives easier. First, I pay tribute to the work of LGBT+ groups across Newport East, such as Rainbow Newport, founded by my constituent Adam Smith. I thank him—I know  he will be watching—for his tireless work and for, this week, becoming the chair of the new Newport County LGBT+ supporters’ group. I also thank Stonewall Cymru, Pride Cymru and Bi Cymru for working to make Newport East a friendlier place for all the community.
I am also keen to highlight the work of those at Newport Youth Council, who have been formidable campaigners on LGBT+ issues and who, working alongside Newport City Council, produced new guidance for schools after young people across the city told them that their experience
“wasn’t represented correctly—or to the level it should be.”
Their aim is to create the
“inclusive, tolerant and welcoming atmosphere that every young person deserves.”
I very much commend them for that. This is just one of the many things that Newport City Council has done to improve rights across our city. Earlier this week, the council passed a motion to become a diversity and democracy council that commits to ensuring that the council chamber is more representative of the communities it serves, which can only be a good thing. This year the council flew the Progress flag to celebrate Pride. Newport City Council leader Jane Mudd said that this was done to recognise
“the breadth of sexual and gender identities that we welcome”
in Newport. I thank her and Councillor Laura Lacey, LGBT+ champion at the council, as well as former leader Baroness Wilcox, for their leadership and their work on this.
While Pride is a chance to celebrate the progress we have made so far, it is also really important, as many hon. Members have said, to remember that Pride was born out of protest and so must also serve as a chance to reflect on what we still need to do to improve the lives of LGBT people. As the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) said, our recognising that hate crimes are on the rise is just one example.
As a Member for a Welsh constituency, I am really proud of the work that the Welsh Labour Government have undertaken to address inequalities. They have already taken action to push forward curriculum reform and to be the first nation to offer PrEP free on the NHS. Earlier this week, the Welsh Labour Government reaffirmed their commitment to try to become the most LGBT-friendly country in Europe and provided £25,000 of new funding for Pride Cymru, with plans to substantially invest more as well as to establish a Wales-wide Pride fund to support grassroots events. As the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd said, they are working to secure the devolution of as many aspects as possible of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and commissioning legal advice on all available powers to introduce a ban on conversion therapy, regardless of UK delays.
Equality cannot simply be about empty gestures and warm words. To echo the comments made earlier this week by the Deputy Minister for Social Partnership, Hannah Blythyn, to whom I pay a big tribute for her leadership and her passion about this in the Senedd, “Progress is never inevitable.” As such, I really urge the UK Government to work with the Welsh Government to create not just a more equal Wales but a more equitable UK.

Martin Docherty: I am grateful and thankful for being able to participate in this very important debate and to do so as an open member of the LGBTQ community.
The last time I spoke on issues relating to LGBTQ rights related to our relationship with the Sultanate of Brunei, a Commonwealth state that clearly criminalises the entirety of the LGBTQ community. As I said on the Floor of the House at that time, it is where people of our identity are
“stoned, hanged and murdered”
for
“having sex with someone of the same gender, along with lesbian women, who are…whipped.”—[Official Report, 4 April 2019; Vol. 657, c. 1278.]
We should be under no illusion that our relationship as a state with other Commonwealth nations must be robust and frank on the issue of LGBTQ rights.
Closer to home, I want to pay tribute to colleagues in Georgia who continue to be frustrated in their ability to have equality in the Georgian state, no matter that the constitution itself gives them the right to full equality. I pay tribute to the work that Georgia Pride did in June and continues to do.
It has to be clear that not all members of the LGBT community are pro-LGBTQ rights. For many of us, especially men, including white men who are vocal and who, for example, are in Parliament, because of certain economics or demographics, we need to be clear in challenging our own concepts of what it means to be LGBTQ in this state. We need to hear more voices from women, from young black people and from people from other minority ethnic communities. I say that as co-chair of the all-party group for Gypsies, Travellers and Roma. The LGBT community there are starting to become a vocal part of representing their culture and history.
I have a short time to speak. I often say that our diversity is our greatest strength. That strength, however, is being torn asunder at the moment by what I would call non-state actors targeting the most vulnerable, specifically our trans brothers and sisters. I stand in solidarity with them today.
As I come to my conclusion, I pay tribute to those in my own community who, over the years, through intolerance and fear, have not been able to get this far, who have taken their own lives, and whose lives have been ended early due to ill health—not receiving the appropriate support—and isolation. I pay tribute to the men and women of West Dunbartonshire who never made it. We need to recognise, as I have said, that diversity is our greatest strength and we should not allow non-state and state actors to undermine that very strength.

Angela Crawley: I congratulate the hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle), whose very presence, bravery and courage in this Chamber have paved the way for so many of us, the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson) on securing  this debate.
The first debate that I recall truly engaging in and feeling like I had a vested interest in was the debate on equal marriage that took place a number of years ago, before I was even in this House. I remember watching that debate. I say this because each one of us today has spoken personally, emotionally and truly movingly. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden), who rightly spoke up. The first debate I heard was the debate on equal marriage. I heard the rhetoric, I heard the fear and I heard the concern. I respected the religious diversity of opinions, but I heard fear. I was scared for my world, for the future that I could have, and for the life that I could have. I will be honest: I never ever imagined that I would be here myself. I am so grateful that I can be here and be a voice that is diverse, that is different and that celebrates being a woman, openly gay and an SNP MP—something that I truly never thought I would be.
This is now the second year running that, due to covid, Pride celebrations have been cancelled or relegated to being online. Pride is many things to many people. It is a protest, it is a celebration and it is a party. Sometimes it comes with a sense of community. It is an opportunity to bring families together, a moment to reflect and a chance to call for change. But with celebrations being far less visible than usual, it is especially important that we are having this debate today, so do not underestimate your presence in this Chamber and the voice that you have.
I am pleased to take part in this debate. I specifically wanted to be here in person, because I felt that it was important to be that voice. I recognise my privilege to be in this House and I am grateful. We are definitely seeing more acceptance and celebrations of life events such as same-sex marriage and civil partnership. More and more people are starting their own families and there are more routes to parenthood than there used to be, so we are seeing more and more rainbow families. That in itself is something to celebrate and to recognise: in future, there will be many, many more parents who will look different. Perhaps we will not fear this idea that parents can look different, that families can look different and that this House can start to represent the rest of society.
The real reason that I wanted to speak today is that I grew up in a community where, through no fault of their own, I did not get a choice and I was brought up Catholic. It was not a choice I made, but it was a faith that I followed, that I respect and that to some extent I admire, but it was a faith that made me believe that Iusb could never grow up and marry the person I loved, and that I might never have a family. For many years, I felt a deep shame and probably a bit of reticence about celebrating who I was. I am incredibly proud of who I am. I am proud to celebrate Pride, I am proud to be an MP and I am proud to be one of the many SNP MPs who are from the LGBT community.
That is something I can celebrate, but there are so many people in the world who do not get that opportunity. They do not get to celebrate who they are, where they come from or where they are going. That is true for so many people, but particularly for those asylum seekers who come to this country. They seek haven, they seek refuge, they seek our support and they seek a safe place to live. They are rejected because they perhaps do not meet the criteria, even when they clearly state that their sexuality, sexual orientation or, for that matter, sexual  identity might mean—the concept is almost dumbfounding—that they might not maintain their life in their home country. But they cannot come here and they cannot secure citizenship here.
My only call to the Minister today is to look carefully at the Home Office policies. There are so many people who look to the UK as a beacon of light, and we can be that beacon of light. I urge the Minister to liaise with his Home Office colleagues and make this possible. So many people look to us to give them a safe place and a home, and we must make that possible.

Alistair Carmichael: It is a genuine pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley). Her own testimony highlights the importance of a debate like this. It was a very simple message that everybody should feel comfortable telling people who they are or what they are. It is as simple as that. It tells us quite a lot about the different influences that we have had in this country down the centuries—she touched on the role of the Churches and there are doubtless others—that it should seem remarkable, or something to be celebrated, that we are able to do that.
It is important that we have a debate like this in this House, because people across the country and, indeed, in other parts of the world look to us, as parliamentarians and as people in public life, to give a lead, and it is incumbent on us to take a lead. I would suggest that holding a debate like this is one small way in which we can do that. All of us who are in public life have a responsibility to understand that our words always have consequences. For those who are not here, who are not espousing views of equality and inclusion and who are expressing homophobic views—whether they are parliamentarians, people in public life or just individual citizens—it is not the people who are espousing those views who are responsible necessarily for the homophobic attacks and for the angst of young people who do not feel comfortable coming out. However, we have to understand that, when people in public life espouse those views, they legitimise those who will throw the punches and the kicks. That is why there is a responsibility on us all—in this House, particularly—to send a clear message that nobody in this country should feel constrained in saying who they are or what they are.
We have made significant progress over the years. The ending of section 28 was a significant moment. I was here at the time and led for my party on the creation of civil partnerships and then on the creation of equal marriage. These have all been significant events, and it is right that we should celebrate them. I was absolutely delighted, and genuinely moved, to see just a few weeks ago so many Facebook posts from friends of mine who are gay men and have given blood for the first time. That is in many ways a small and mundane part of everything, but it sends a genuine message of inclusion. To exclude people from making that kind of contribution to their community on the basis of their sexuality was a wrong that was overdue for righting, and I am delighted that it has been done.
Of course, there is still more we can do within our own communities, and as we look around the world, as others have said, we see that there is a lot more to be done. I have to mention in particular the proposals  coming from the Hungarian Government at the moment that would create their own version of section 28. I wish they would learn from the experience of those of us in this country of how section 28 operated and the effect it had, especially on vulnerable people who, as a consequence of the operation of that law, did not feel that they were able to be open about and engaged in their sexuality.

Angela Eagle: Will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the point of section 28, and the point of this Hungarian law, is precisely to stigmatise people for the perceived political advantage of one side of an argument?

Alistair Carmichael: I absolutely acknowledge that, and I do more than acknowledge it: I agree with it absolutely, and I think we are right to call that out. To use someone’s sexuality against them for a political purpose, or using their skin colour or other defining characteristics—something with which they are born—has to be just about as low as it is possible to go. I remember Albert Lutuli saying in the context of the anti-apartheid struggle that apartheid was the only absolute tyranny, because it discriminated against people for something they had absolutely no power to change, which was the colour of their skin. For all of us, our sexuality is something with which we are born: it is not a choice. I will argue with people in all parts of this House, and possibly even on my party’s own Benches, about the choices that we make, but we should not be divided on the basis of things about which we have absolutely no choice.
I do not want to detain the House for too long, but I want to place on record a small piece of Pride history, which is that last weekend, we celebrated a Pride first. We had the most northerly Pride yet in the United Kingdom when we had the Pride festival in Kirkwall in Orkney. It was a joyous occasion—it was obviously curtailed as a consequence of covid regulations, but to see so many Orcadians out there, talking about their pride in who they are, was a truly remarkable moment. Walking around Kirkwall town centre, seeing so many shops and businesses with Pride flags in their window, was a tremendous signal that everybody was valued as part of our community—we have a very strong sense of community in Orkney—and that that inclusion was there for all, regardless of their sexual orientation.
I look forward to having the same first again next year, because we will have the new most northerly Pride in the United Kingdom when Shetland Pride is celebrated next June. A tremendous amount of work and planning is already going into that, and I commend those who are responsible both for Orkney Pride last weekend and for the planning that is going into Shetland Pride for June 2022 for everything they are doing to send a signal that in every community, right across the country, the right of individuals to be included on their own terms is inalienable. It is something that we should celebrate, and something that we do, in fact, celebrate here today.

Tan Dhesi: May I start by congratulating the hon. Members for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) and for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson) and my hon. Friend  the Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle)? Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey, who has been instrumental in bringing forward this important debate, in particular deserves the recognition and gratitude of the House for her tireless pursuit of equality and justice for LGBT+ people: thank you very much. It has been an honour and a privilege to listen to contributions from hon. and right hon. Members today, in particular the moving and inspirational personal account of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden).
Pride Month is a welcome opportunity to reflect on all the hard work being done and the progress that we have made collectively on LGBT+ rights. I praise all the groups the individuals in my Slough constituency that are working to provide advice, services, safe spaces and advocacy for the LGBT+ community. That includes Slough Borough Council, voluntary groups, businesses and public services, and all the people who work hard for equality and human rights.
As we have heard this afternoon, we have made great advances as a society since the dark days of the 1950s and before—the days of homosexuality being classified as an illness, of the threat of blackmail, stigma, social isolation and imprisonment, and of the horrors of electric shock aversion therapy, electroconvulsive therapy and chemical castration.
We all know the story of one of Britain’s greatest heroes, Alan Turing—a man whose work, some academics argue, saved 14 million lives and shortened the world war by more than two years. He was a perfectly healthy gay man in his 30s, a brilliant mind and a great patriot, who was forced by the law into sickness and death. Alan Turing is just one of thousands of men and women harassed, arrested, imprisoned, tortured and killed by the British state’s homophobic laws. We owe each and every one an apology, and their families too.
Let us reflect on progress: the Sexual Offences Act 1967; the abolition of section 28; civil partnerships; same-sex marriages; the securing of LGBT+ rights in law, especially the Equality Act 2010. But we should also reflect that progress does not always travel in a direct line. For every two steps forward, there are those who want us to take one step back—for example, on trans rights.
In each generation, the struggle for rights takes on new forms. I am in particular thinking about the struggle against so-called conversion therapy. The idea that someone’s sexuality should be subject to forceable conversion into something different is shockingly insulting. I welcome the Government’s commitment in the Queen’s Speech to ban so-called conversion therapy, but where is the ban? I say to Ministers, we do not need more consultation; we need action. My great fear is that the Government are dragging their feet ahead of some kind of climbdown on their promises or in order to include exemptions. We must be clear that there can be no acceptance of or acquiescence to the proponents of gay conversion therapy. It must be swept into the gutter, where it belongs.
Let me address the international aspect of the debate. Around the world, there are nations where LGBT+ people live in fear and stigma, where violence and murder are commonplace and equality is outlawed. There are 69 member states of the United Nations where consensual same-sex activity is illegal. There has been some progress. For example, Botswana’s high court  ruled in favour of decriminalising homosexuality in 2019; Mozambique and the Seychelles have scrapped anti-gay laws; and in 2018, a court in Trinidad and Tobago ruled that laws banning gay sex were unconstitutional. But unfortunately, Nigeria and Uganda have recently tightened their homophobic laws, and in Europe, as we have heard from other hon. Members, Viktor Orbán’s Government in Hungary have intensified their attack on the LGBT+ community. Why should our British Prime Minister be rolling out the red carpet for such an individual?
There are plenty of cities where Pride marches are not celebrations and festivals, not expressions of solidarity and love, but instead subject to bans, violence and hate. We must therefore ensure that the Government outline what they are doing to encourage our friends and allies around the world, especially in the Commonwealth, to repeal homophobic laws and bring in real and lasting equality for all. In the words of Martin Luther King Jr:
“No one is free until we are all free.”

Alyn Smith: It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate, and I pay tribute to the hon. and right hon. Members who have made some really excellent contributions throughout. It is a poignant debate, because we can think about how far we have come, we can think about how far we have to go and we can also remember the importance of solidarity, respect and love across the political divides in the spirit of equality.
In that spirit, I start my remarks by paying tribute to Leeze Lawrence. She was a resident of Stirling, a member of the SNP Stirling branch and the convenor of Out for Independence, and she passed away a couple of weeks ago. She was a force of nature and a force for good, and she achieved in her short life much more than many others will in theirs. She will be very much missed by her friends and her family, and I pass on my deepest sympathies to them.
It is important to remember that Pride was a protest—it still is a protest. Some of that has been lost in the corporatisation of Pride events in some places, but Pride is a protest against injustice, a protest against inequality, a protest against ignorance and a protest against bigotry. It is easy to take the equality we enjoy for granted, and we must not do that. Progress is not guaranteed and rights are reversible.
We have come a long way—we really have—and it is worth acknowledging that. I was the first SNP politician to come out in 2006. I was not the first gay SNP politician, but I was the first to make a song and dance about it. I am proud to say that the SNP is one of the gayest parties in these islands, and contributing to equalities runs through everything that we do. We have come a long way.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. We have made progress in these islands—we have made progress in Scotland, and we have made progress in the UK—but there are countless millions around the world who do not enjoy that freedom and equality, and who are not in the fortunate position we are. It is incumbent on all of us to protect and promote equality, and to work with allies abroad to secure the equality of others. Homosexuality remains illegal in 69 countries around the world, and some even punish it with death. We really do have a long way to go.
Closer to home, as well, rights are reversible. We have heard already that Hungary’s anti-LGBT law is a shame on the European conscience. I am glad that Dr von der Leyen and the European Commission are taking action. I would like to see it happen faster, and I would like us to be vocal in it as well, because it is an utterly counterproductive law coming from bad politics and bad information. It is also a reminder that things can go backwards.
In that spirit, I reaffirm today my complete solidarity with our trans brothers and sisters and I also reaffirm my complete solidarity with women and women’s rights. I do not see that those two statements are mutually exclusive or in conflict. I see nothing in trans equality that would diminish women’s rights. I see nothing that women have to fear from the trans community. I see plenty of reasons why women should fear abusive men. It is in the debate online particularly that we have seen abusive men—bad actors and false friends spitting hate and poison into the debate—and it is incumbent on all of us to push back on that and fight them with good information, respectful dialogue and mutual understanding. I would never be a part of anything that would diminish women’s rights. Women have nothing to fear from trans equality. It is a challenge for all of us to make sure that that debate takes place in the right way and gets the right result.
Pride is a protest and rights are not secure. Rights must be maintained and fought for on a daily basis, but if we all look after each other, we will all win. Pride is not about special pleading. It is about equality for all of us.

Ian Byrne: I thank the hon. Members who secured this debate today, including my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle), and I thank her for her incredibly important contribution today and for all the work she has done and continues to do. We have heard so many powerful speeches, including that of the hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley), but I am extremely proud to have been in the Chamber today to listen to my great friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden). His moving and brave contribution will live long in the memory of everybody here who witnessed it and watched it today.
I worry about the division that we are seeing now in political discourse and everyday life. Division of communities leads to a breakdown of cohesion and the opportunity for hate and fear to flourish. I fear that we can see this graphically and worryingly with the rise in hate crime.
Just in Liverpool over the last few weeks, there have been a number of homophobic attacks in our town centre. The images have shocked the city and last week a demonstration took place saying that hatred and homophobia had no place in Liverpool or any other place. But if we look at events in Hungary, as has been mentioned, the fear grows that this hatred and division among communities is being encouraged and actively sown. Orbán’s decision to ban LGBT content in schools and the media is exactly where this direction of travel ends. I was delighted to see the EU’s ultimatum to cease and desist these attacks or leave the EU. I wonder whether the PM gave him a similar message when they met last month.
Education is a huge part of the solution—I know that from personal experience. An education was given to me by the likes of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton, when we worked together on his campaign to ban the abhorrent practice of conversion therapy when we found out that a local church in Anfield was offering these so-called therapies, including ritual starvation. The light that my hon. Friend and the Liverpool Echo shone on those practices in our community has increased awareness and facilitated further understanding and education, and galvanised the campaign to end them.
At Fans Supporting Food Banks, an organisation I co-founded, we work closely with the LGBTQ+ supporter groups at both Liverpool and Everton football clubs, to promote tolerance and understanding in football. The use of homophobic language was common in songs at football grounds. About six years ago, I got elected to the Liverpool FC supporters committee and I met a fantastic person in Paul Amann, who educated us all in what a member of the LGBTQ community might feel when hearing those songs in the football ground. It provided a real wake-up call and a genuine education to me personally. We worked on making grounds more inclusive, raising awareness and tackling this kind of language. I am extremely proud that we have made Liverpool football club the first club to explicitly prohibit homophobic language in the ground. It was Paul’s patience and bravery on this issue from which I learned so much and for which I admire him so much.
Education and community cohesion go hand in hand, and Pride Month does so much to achieve that. But as recent events have shown, we have so much work to do. I am proud that our party scrapped Thatcher’s appalling section 28, but there is lots of work to be done to ensure that we do not go backwards and that we work to defeat the voices of division and hatred in our communities by showing the same tolerance, understanding and education that was shown to me.

Eleanor Laing: I call Stewart Malcolm McDonald.

Stewart McDonald: You timed that rather well, Madam Deputy Speaker; God is shining on us this afternoon, is he not?
I am grateful to be called in this debate and I congratulate the hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle) and others on securing it. Like others, I commend the actually beautiful speech from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden). He will be called brave and all sorts of things from now on, but “beautiful” is the best way to describe what he chose to do this afternoon. Like the whole House, I am sure, I wish him well in whatever he goes on to do next.
As has been mentioned quite a few times in the debate, this is the gayest Parliament in the world. The great irony is that, if we go back to 2015, it was the arrival of so many Scottish National party Members of Parliament that made this place the gayest Parliament in the world. So when we go, as we will eventually, hon. Members will have a job to do in maintaining that status —and in that, of course, we will wish our neighbours well.
It has been said that we have to take account of the progress that we have made—and progress has undoubtedly been made. There are the recent changes to allow men who have sex with men to give blood; I was pleased to play a small part in that as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on blood donation, along with my friend, Paula Sherriff, the former Labour Member of Parliament—she is no longer with us in Parliament, and the House misses her dearly.
There have been all kinds of other progress over the years—marriage, adoption rights and education. A Scot, in the form of Lawrence Chaney, has finally won “RuPaul’s Drag Race”—arguably for many people, the best bit of progress that we have made. Of course, it is the case that, as Pride Month becomes more visible and more people attend, the corporations, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith) has said, will get in on it as well. It is great to see flags on buses and trains, and when we go into shopping centres or down the high street we see rainbow flags everywhere. I say to the corporations, however, that Pride is not just for the month of June; it is not about flying a rainbow flag, taking it down the next day and going back to business as usual. Standing in solidarity with us is about more than just flying those flags. When the corporations release their special Pride products for the month of June next year, how about some of the profits go to help LGBT+ charities in this country and elsewhere, rather than cashing in on something that, thankfully, is at least popular for some?
As others have said, Pride has been cancelled/put online for the past 12 months. Last year I hosted a weekly series of online Pride events with various activists in eastern European and central Asian countries. What a learning experience that was. I thank activists in countries such as Georgia, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes), and, as Members would expect, I thank activists for the work that goes on in Ukraine, including my friend Maxim Eristavi, who does so much to raise the profile of this issue all around the world but in particular in that region of Europe. My most memorable Pride happened three years ago in the Ukrainian capital of Kyiv. There was not a single Coca-Cola float or any other big brand. It was a proper shouting protest. And my goodness, the bravery that they show in continuing to do that is an inspiration to us all.
As has been said, the progress made is great but we want to see action on conversion therapy. I had never thought of my own experience as being one of conversion therapy, but it goes back to when I was a teenager and had got mixed up in an evangelical church for a couple of years. I remember the laying of hands on me, trying to pray the gay away, as it were. In fact, I had not even realised at that point that I might be gay. I know that that might be difficult for some people to even consider, but I remember being told at the time that it was bad for me, that God would deliver me from it and that it was a satanic spirit that was doing this to me. The confusion in my mind at the time was incredible, but until a recent discussion with a woman from the Christian church who is against conversion therapy, it had not even occurred to me that that was a form of conversion therapy. It is not always the case that people are sat on a chair in a room and talked at by people in white coats with Bibles or whatever; it is often more discreet, but  equally sinister. The Comptroller of Her Majesty’s Household is a good man, but I implore the Government to bring this forward without delay.
The last thing I want to mention is the issue of transgender rights and the well of poison that that discussion has become. We do not have a community if we expel one part of it. I refuse to do so, and I know that Members in this House will refuse to let it happen. However, it has become, I am afraid to say, the polite bigotry of the middle classes. Transphobia is acceptable in the good newspapers—The Times, the Telegraph and the Glasgow Herald. It has become entirely acceptable. If some of the things that we read, like the obsessions about girls wearing trousers to school, were written by an imam, people would go tonto—they would go off their nuts—but they are written by these privileged and largely, though not exclusively, white, middle-class people who have become so radicalised on the issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and others have mentioned the online discussions. This is radicalisation and there is no other way to describe it. Where does it take us? Last month was the anniversary of the shooting in the Pulse nightclub in Orlando. Right now on Netflix we can watch a documentary about the Soho bombing that happened just over 20 years ago. We see young people—this was mentioned by the previous speaker—being attacked in the street for who they are. We are heading for something bad if this does not get dealt with, if this is not tackled and if those of us who do stand with trans people do not come out vigorously in their defence.
What gives me hope? Yes, I get discouraged by all that poison. Yes, I get discouraged by the fact that, in this rather perverse debate we now have, Stonewall is now akin to ISIS in some people’s view. Rape crisis centres that help or employ trans people are being targeted by bigots and bullies. All that gets me down, but what gives me hope is the young people who do not give up. I get exhausted with it, but I keep going and keep doing what I can. When I see young people involved in Stonewall, the Equality Network and their own political parties coming together and fighting that poisonous disinformation and ensuring that steps always go forward and not backwards, that is what gives me hope.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) said that nobody should be restrained in having to be who they are—even Liberal Democrats, I would extend that to. [Laughter.] That is so important and all power to their elbow. I will be with them side by side, but it is a fight we need the Government to get onside with too.

Catherine West: It is a real pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) who spoke movingly about his personal experiences. It is unbelievable to think that conversion therapy is still lawful in 2021. I hope the Minister will come back with a timetable for banning it here in the UK.
Our Parliament is the best of us when we have these debates. The leadership shown by my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle) not just in her introduction to the debate with her speech but more broadly in being solid and wise counsel for so many—not just those within the community—is a beacon for LGBT rights in Parliament. Her work, together with others  across Parliament, has really outshone the Government in many ways, particularly with what has been achieved in the last few years. It has allowed the space in our Parliament so that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) is able to speak about his own experience: how his identity was made clear to him, some of the paths he has taken and issues he has dealt with in coming to terms with his own life, and the strong role models he has had. We all know there are so many young people who have not had those supportive parents or a supportive environment in school and they may still be suffering the discrimination that can go with being LGBTQ.
I want to briefly talk about my concerns about reductions in funding for the inclusive teaching of equalities in our schools. Some of the proactive guidance around the banning of section 28 at that time, which this country led on, has now been watered down to some degree. I worry about where our schools may not be high-performing schools and whether that bullying continues. I fear that it probably does.
I also worry about some of the reductions and cuts in the work that we are doing abroad. For example, there is the excellent work that the hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) is doing with parliamentary colleagues across the globe through the liaison scheme between Parliaments to promote equality by visiting LGBT groups during trips abroad or by linking up with networks in other Parliaments. I fear that work of that kind is undermined by some of the reductions, for example, to British Council spending—the British Council is very focused on values and on the soft power of our media. I fear it will also be undermined by reductions in the BBC World Service, where we have really good programming and first-class stories, poetry and music on LGBTQ issues that may be a shining light, which people who do not live in a free and fair democracy might hanker for.
I also want to pay tribute to some of the grassroots groups in the London Borough of Haringey—other Members have paid tribute to groups in their constituencies. We have a terrific group called Wise Thoughts, which is available particularly for black young people and young people from backgrounds where their parents may not be familiar with equalities legislation or be particularly open about the fact that their children are gay. Wise Thoughts is always present at every single job fair or community safety event, quietly flying the flag but also being available to talk to young people. I am also really grateful to our wonderful community choir, which plays and sings at events. Unfortunately, this is the second year in a row that it has been unable to be particularly active, but we did have the spontaneous singing of our community choir underneath a tree in Crouch End in 2016, when the terrifying terror attack on the Pulse nightclub took place. It is just so wonderful to see those grassroots groups coming together to stand up against inequality and, in that case, a terror attack.
I also want to draw attention to the cross-party nature of today’s debate. I was really delighted to see that on a British-America Parliamentary Group tour in the US, the Minister was working cross-party with us on questioning the reductions to the HIV/AIDS budget that the former President of the USA was attempting to introduce at the time. It was fantastic to work across Parliament as the British-American Parliamentary Group  to make the case for continued funding for HIV programmes abroad. It shows the best of our Parliament when we work together across the piece on those important programmes. In the same spirit, may I encourage the Minister to question whether rolling out the red carpet for Viktor Orbán, as was done by No. 10, is the right tone? I worry that the struggle for equal treatment for LGBTQ communities is being set back in that part of Europe. The hon. Member for Glasgow South described his experience in Kiev. It is a struggle—a day-to-day, hour-by-hour struggle there—and we must never forget that.
In conclusion, I first want to ask the Minister to address in his final remarks what he thinks should be done to support the training of classroom teachers—whether at primary or secondary school level, or in our further education colleges and universities—so that here at home, when young people are questioning and want to talk to people and when they want to come out, we can be sure that there is support for them. We know that recent research has shown that it takes the human brain up to the age of 25 to be fully formed, so people in their early 20s may still need assistance, talking therapy or even just support to know that their feelings, belief and identity are okay. Will the Minister outline whether he believes that there is sufficient inclusive training and support for different groups in our schools?
Secondly, will he outline the progress on the Gender Recognition Act 2004? There is a sort of half debate being had and it would be really good to know the exact timeline on that. Thirdly, I would like to know the exact timeline on the banning of conversion therapy. It has been clear during this afternoon’s debate that we all feel we need to urge the Government to get on with that.
Finally, will he outline the Government’s role in being a beacon within our region so that we can, with confidence, challenge the policies of countries where it is not right, where people are being treated unfairly and where equalities are not being observed? Will he stand up today and encourage this Government to get it right with countries—even some that are within our region—so that we can be sure that we are sending the right message, not only as a Parliament, but so that that the Government are too?

Wera Hobhouse: It is a pleasure to take part in this debate today and hear so much cross-party consensus. Pride Month is about celebration, activism and commemoration. It is about recognising the progress that we have made since the Stonewall riots, and it is about continuing the fight for equality alongside our LGBT+ family and friends. There is so much more to do, and we must not forget that.
Along with so many others today, I find myself once more speaking about a specific inequality that should have been dealt with many years ago: the legality of so-called conversion therapy. Conversion therapy by its very definition is designed to rob LGBT+ people of their identity. It is nothing short of medieval. It is not healthcare; it is not ministry; it is abuse, yet it remains legal.
In the 2015 general election campaign, the former Prime Minister pledged to ban conversion therapy. That was more than five years ago. That winter, the Conservative  Government backtracked and there was no ban. Then in 2018, the next Prime Minister pledged to ban conversion therapy, but the Government backtracked again and there was no ban. The current Prime Minister, who campaigned on some promises of progress and change, also pledged to ban conversion therapy. The proposal even made it into the Queen’s Speech, but still there is no ban. As far as I am aware, there are no firm plans for a ban. I hope the Minister will be able to correct me on that point.
Instead, we are being told we must wait for a consultation that has not even been scheduled. Why? The only conceivable purpose of this consultation is yet more delay. The consultation can only tell us what we already know and what the Government have apparently believed for five years—that conversion therapy should be completely banned. In these circumstances, it is difficult to accept the continued promises. When will the Government act?
LGBT representatives from every major party, including the Conservative party, have called for an immediate ban. They called the Government’s commitments
“disappointingly weak, vague and unempathetic”.
That was from Members of their own party. This clearly is not good enough. LGBT+ people are being let down by this Government.
Last Wednesday, Alan Turing took his rightful place on our £50 note. We easily forget that Turing was forced to receive chemical castration at the hands of the state, all because he was guilty of the crime, as it was then, of loving another man. This chemical castration was meant to suppress his sexual orientation. It was a conversion therapy—one that our Government at the time had made into a legal instrument. We have come a long way since then. Homosexual acts are no longer illegal. Gay marriage is now legal, and I am proud of the Liberal Democrats’ role in making that happen, but as long as conversion therapy is legal, using Turing as a figurehead seems to be some form of big hypocrisy.
The NHS, international observers, LGBT+ organisations, professional bodies in health and social care, interfaith organisations and senior figures in all major parties are united: we must ban conversion therapy now. As this year’s Pride Month draws to a close, I urge colleagues from all parts of the House, including Government Ministers, to make it an urgent priority.

Sarah Owen: May I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle) for securing this debate? We have heard many heartfelt contributions today, but none more so than from my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden). It took absolute bravery and courage. He is a true inspiration, and it is great to see such representation and such inspirational representation from Liverpool as a whole.
I rise as someone who hopes to be a good ally to LGBTQ+ people in Luton North and across the country and to the brilliant LGBTQ+ colleagues who have spoken in the debate. I pay tribute to my wonderful friend Sue Hackett, a fantastic GMB union activist and equality champion who has been the heart and soul of equalities at GMB London region. Women like her show what a difference a true ally, a true sister and a  true trade unionist can make in workplaces and in our movement. I wish her the happiest retirement, because after 42 years she certainly deserves it.
There was a time in my living memory when a debate such as this, in this place would never have happened—when parties would market themselves as “the straight choice” against gay candidates, when MPs would proudly describe homosexuality as a
“sterile disease-ridden, God-forsaken occupation”
and when Prime Ministers decried children apparently being taught that they had a right to be gay. We can be proud of and hopeful about the progress we have seen over the last 25 years on LGBTQ+ rights. However, I am standing here as a Labour MP because I know there is nothing inevitable about progress. People have to fight for it every day. The fight might be easier on some days than others, but if we let our guard down, we will see that hatred and bigotry can easily rear its ugly head again.
When the last Labour Government repealed section 28, introduced civil partnerships and adoption and, yes, brought in the original Gender Recognition Act, those things did not happen because MPs woke up one day and thought, “Well, that’s a good idea.” It took years of hard work by activists, trade unions and LGBT+ people who campaigned and got beaten up in the streets but were still loud and still proud. Since then, we have had gay marriage and, as we have heard many times today, our Parliament has become the gayest in the world. I pay tribute to our fantastic, steely candidate in Batley and Spen, Kim Leadbeater, who I hope after 10 pm will be joining us here on the green Benches.
However, I speak to some LGBTQ+ people and, while there is so much to be proud of, there is sometimes a resurgence of fear. I know, as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on hate crime, that in the past year the hate crime of homophobia, as with every other protected characteristic, has seen an increase. They are fearful when some Members of this House pander to voices who speak of trans people as a dangerous lobby who want to cause harm to others. They are fearful when parts of the media use terms like “trans Taliban” to describe trans people who just want to get on with their lives. They are fearful when people who call themselves activists acting on behalf of women attack Stonewall, and fearful when so-called charities who oppose banning conversion therapy for trans people try to divide LGB people from trans people.
The new wedge issue politics, culture war campaigning is no feminism, activism or progressive campaigning as I would recognise it, but it exists as a stark reminder that there is nothing inevitable about progress. Over the last few years, it has become increasingly clear that the fight on LGBT+ rights is not over. When we allow bigots a free pass to attack trans people and media outlets continue spinning the most vicious bile about trans people and, often, the rest of the LGBT community as well, we need to start seriously asking ourselves who these people are coming for next.
Those who genuinely believe in human rights do not choose which human’s rights they support and which they do not. Anyone who has been attacked for who they are, how they look or what they believe knows what it is to be on the receiving end of abuse, hatred and division. That is exactly why Pride remains a protest—and  I know that sadly we have not had a Pride in person during the pandemic. Pride is a protest because one in five LGBTQ+ people has experienced a hate crime because of who they are or who they love. It is a protest because there are people abroad who are left seeking asylum for their sexuality. It is a protest because more than half of LGBTQ+ young people are still bullied in school because of who they are, and it is a protest because trans women are women, and trans men are men, and their fight is ours. Those should not be controversial statements. The fact that they are shows just how far we have to go to achieve true equality in our country. But true equality is always worth fighting for, because that makes it a safer, fairer and brighter place for everyone to live in.

Kim Johnson: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle) on securing this important debate, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) for his personal and powerful testimony. I thank all those who have contributed this afternoon.
I welcome this debate and the opportunity to wish people a very happy Pride Month, and send my solidarity to LGBT+ communities in Liverpool, Riverside, and across the country. Although this debate is an opportunity to celebrate and take pride in the existence, struggles and successes of those communities, we must also recognise the violence and oppression that LGBT+ people still suffer. Just last month, hundreds of people marched through Liverpool city centre to protest against a spate of vicious homophobic attacks on our streets in the past few weeks. I pledge my solidarity with the victims of those appalling attacks, which were especially horrific because they happened during Pride Month. I call for justice to be swiftly served, and action taken to ensure that all our communities feel safe on our streets.
The diversity of Liverpool is one of our greatest strengths, and those attacks show that we must do more to ensure that everyone is welcome on our streets, and that violence, hatred and bigotry are not. Although responsibility for the attacks must be borne by the perpetrators, and justice must be served, they did not happen in a vacuum. This year, the Government have waged a culture war against trans rights, attacking leading LGBT organisations such as Stonewall, for its campaigning on trans rights. They have disbanded their own LGBT+ advisory panel after a series of resignations over the delay in banning conversion therapy practices.
Despite promising a ban on conversion therapies three years ago, the Government have yet to take action. Instead, they have kicked the can down the road into yet another consultation. Soundings from the Prime Minister, and others, threaten significant loopholes, notably regarding faith-based practices, as well as trans people. We know from the Government’s own national LGBT+ survey that 51% of those who have undergone conversion therapy said that it had been conducted by faith groups. I am a member of the Women and Equalities Committee, which is currently conducting a review of the reform of the Gender Recognition Act. Time and again I have heard evidence of the harrowing impact of  those practices and their disastrous implications for some of the most vulnerable people in our society. Such evidence is not new. Indeed, the Government are well aware of it, given their recent consultation.
Will the Minister set out to the House an exact timetable for legislation to ban conversion therapy? Will he reassure Members that the legislation will include a total ban on those cruel practices? On this Government’s watch, waiting times for gender identity clinics have increased to unlawful levels, leaving at risk thousands who are in need of urgent support. Instead of facing up to the scale of the challenge and committing sufficient funding to alleviate pressures on those services and the rising demand, the Government have plans to open a mere three new gender identity clinics. Such plans will leave nearly 10,000 people on waiting lists.
This is a crisis, and I call on the Government to go back to the drawing board and bring forward a properly resourced plan to support trans and non-binary people who are in urgent need of support. They must bring an end to the unlawful and excruciating waiting times for treatment. This Pride Month I call on the Government to refrain from paying hollow lip service to queer solidarity and liberation, and I call instead for practical actions that are fully within their power to support LGBT+ people.

Kirsten Oswald: It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, in the excellent company of SNP colleagues and others across the House, particularly the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden), who made a speech today that will change people’s lives. A lot of speakers in this debate have spoken from personal experience, and I cannot say that I do. I rise, however, because it matters that all of us speak up and speak out.
Like the hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle) I am a feminist, and I see no contradiction between that and my support for LGBT rights and issues. In fact, I believe that all of our rights are imperilled by any attempts to erode the rights of any minority groups. Where things are now feels very much like a tale of two halves; yes, we have much to be positive about, but I have serious concerns, which have been expressed eloquently by others, about issues here and further afield.
I am concerned, for example, about the shameful situation in Hungary, which has been described many times today. While I am on that topic, let me tell UEFA that its decision not to permit the stadium in Munich to be lit up in Pride colours was shocking; its decision was a political one, regardless of how it chose to spin it, and that is not acceptable.
In America under Trump, we saw a deeply damaging rolling back of rights and protections for LGBT citizens. I am glad that a different approach is starting to become evident now, but although that change of tone is welcome, it also demonstrates clearly that we cannot take anything for granted on rights, particularly given the concerted efforts by people who are intent on distributing misinformation, which many Members have clearly described.
It is will be no surprise if I tell the House that I am firmly committed to Scottish independence. I would like us to be independent now—or preferably yesterday. I cannot wait for the referendum, which we will be having soon. I want Scottish independence because I believe we can have a more equal, open country. Crucial to that is being fair. My Scottish National party colleagues will know the following quote, which was popularised by Alasdair Gray and is inscribed on the wall outside the Scottish Parliament:
“Work as if you live in the early days of a better nation”.
That is what I want to see: a better, fairer, more equal, inclusive country, where diversity is celebrated. Scotland has been helping to lead the way on LGBT equality. The SNP Government have a strong record of advancing and championing LGBT rights. They have delivered the most progressive and extensive equal marriage legislation, and the reformed blood donation rules, which we have heard about. It was good to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson) about his work on the Turing Bill, which the Scottish Government enacted—and I could go on. The thing is that that all these great strides need to be our incentive to keep on and to do more.
What we have heard about the current climate is why education matters so much. I wish to mention the work of the TIE campaign; the more our young folk are helped and equipped to understand difference in a sensible, positive and inclusive way, the better. I have said to my teenagers before that there were no LGBT people in my school, which they found hard to believe; I went to quite a big school and if I think about that now, I know that that cannot possibly have been true. Yet that was the late 1980s and the days of section 28, and there were apparently no LGBT students. Of course I keep up with a number of school friends and it turns out that that patently was not the case; a number of them are actually gay but they were not able to say that as young people, because goodness knows what would have happened—whatever it was, it would not have been good.
We have come a long way in many respects, which is very welcome. Despite that, I am very aware that things are still not always easy, and education is crucial in making sure that young people know that they are grand, whoever they are, however they are. It is really important that others around them hear that too and that there are visible role models for them, such as the hon. Members here today, and champions such as Christina McKelvie, the Scottish Government Minister for Equalities and Older People, who is a tireless and inspiring advocate for equality, and Out for Independence, the SNP LBGT group. As we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith), our Out for Independence convenor Leeze Lawrence sadly died a couple of weeks ago, and I am sure that people in this Chamber would want to send their sympathies to her family and friends.
One thing I want to be very explicit about today, because it is, sadly, necessary—I am not the only one who has said that—is that I am very aware of the toxic environment in relation to trans people, particularly, but not only, online. It is something that I have had a number of discussions about lately, and I am grateful to people who have given me their time. I want to say very clearly that nobody’s identity should ever be up for  debate. There should be no excuse for transphobia or for the othering or monstering of a group of people who are simply going about their lives—a group of people who may already be facing challenging situations and who are already marginalised.
Trans people should feel safe, secure and welcome; surely that is just the bare minimum that any of us should expect. In reality, I am heartsore at some of the utter bile that I have seen. It is disgraceful, and we need to call it out and step up and deal with it where possible. To be clear: the SNP welcomes trans people. We are glad to have you and we have committed and are committed to making sure that that is a reality. Although it is not always as straightforward as it should be, we will persist. I want to live, and I want my children to live, in a Scotland where everyone is safe and all our LGBT communities are safe, welcome and playing a full part in making our country the best it can be. For that to be possible, people have to be able to be themselves.
I have previously spoken at length about conversion therapy—as have others today—and how abhorrent it is. Nobody needs to be converted from being themselves. We should not accept that that is okay in any way. The harms that have been caused by so-called conversion therapy—because, of course, it is not a therapy—are terrible. We need to see the progress that the UK Government have promised, and we need to see it soon. To be clear: the SNP fully supports a ban. We know that making a ban fully comprehensive involves powers in reserved areas, so we would like the UK Government to get a move on and do what they said they were going to do. If they do not, the Scottish Government will look to move forward with their own legislation, within the powers that sit in the Scottish Parliament.
I conclude where I started: there are challenges, but when I look around the Chamber today I see that there is also much to be positive about, and we should celebrate that. We do, though, need to work on making sure that everyone has the ability to live freely, just as themselves. That really would be something we could all be proud of.

Charlotte Nichols: This has been an excellent debate on Pride Month. Indeed, I am exceptionally proud to respond to it on behalf of Her Majesty’s Opposition as shadow Minister for Women and Equalities and a proud LGBT parliamentarian. After today’s by-election in Batley and Spen, I hope that another LGBT MP will join us tomorrow, in Kim Leadbeater.
I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for securing this essential debate, and specifically to my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle) and the hon. Members for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) and for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson) for bringing it forward.
I pay specific tribute to the moving contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden), and I thank the many contributors to this debate, including my hon. Friends the Members for Ealing North (James Murray), for Newport East (Jessica Morden), for Slough (Mr Dhesi), for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne), for Luton North (Sarah Owen), for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) and for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson).
On a personal level, as the Member of Parliament for Warrington North I am particularly pleased that there has been such a strong showing from the north-west, given the attempts by the Conservative party and the media to paint the interests of the so-called red wall and the interests of the LGBT community as somehow at odds with each other. I know that that could not be further from the truth in communities like mine.
My hon. Friend the Member for Luton North was exactly right when she drew parallels between the hate crime and discrimination faced by other groups and that faced by the LGBT community. We all have more in common than that which divides us, and none of us are equal until we are all equal.
Pride Month is an opportunity to celebrate both who we are and how far we have come, and the giants on whose shoulders we stand, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North said. It is also an opportunity to highlight ongoing issues and to challenge the Government and our society to go further to reach full equality for all lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and queer people and other groups.
In the years since the Labour Government came to power in 1997, we have seen dramatic action to remove barriers for LGBT people, including the scrapping of the Conservatives’ homophobic section 28; the creation of civil partnerships; the introduction of same-sex adoption; and the protections of the Equality Act. And yes, we have subsequently seen the establishment of same-sex marriage, supported by the Labour party. Unfortunately, that progress is now under threat from Members on the Government Benches, who have been described by members of their own LGBT advisory panel as
“creating a hostile environment for LGBT people”.
Although this is a year when the pandemic has prevented the Pride marches that we all enjoy—indeed, I lament the fact that my wonderfully supportive mum sashaying down the streets of Manchester in her rainbow feather boa has been again postponed—these changes have made the UK a better country and one where community, corporate, media and political groups will wave the Pride flag this month, rightly recognising and celebrating these advances. I thank them for their visibility, but there is further to go.
Just last week, UEFA gave its logo a Pride makeover while refusing the city of Munich’s request to illuminate its stadium with rainbow colours for Germany’s match against Viktor Orbán’s Hungary, on the grounds that it was “political”. Well, I am sorry, but supporting LGBT rights is political. We are not a colourful add-on to brands that do not challenge ongoing homophobia or transphobia. A rainbow does not mean that every storm has ended.
I mention Orbán because he was only the second EU leader that the Prime Minister invited to visit after leaving the EU—rolling out the red carpet for Europe’s leading promoter of anti-LGBT ideology and laws. Under Orbán, as has been raised by many hon. Members across the House today, Hungary has banned same-sex adoption, implemented a section 28-style ban on gay people from featuring in school education materials or TV shows for under-18s, and ended legal recognition for gender changes. Actions speak louder than words.
Globally, 72 countries still criminalise same-sex relationships and the death penalty is threatened in eight of them. In more than half of the world, LGBT  people may not be protected from discrimination by workplace law, and most Governments deny trans people the right legally to change their name and gender. What more can Ministers do to change this, particularly in the Commonwealth, where these rights are still criminalised in a majority of countries?
It is all very well for Government Members to laud their “Safe To Be Me” conference, but LGBT people in the UK are not safe to be with them. This is a Government who are actively rowing back on their commitments to LGBT people, from dropping their plans to reform the Gender Recognition Act 2004, to delaying the urgent need to ban so-called conversion therapy, to attacking LGBT charities and pursuing a culture war against so-called woke issues—or, as they are better known, basic human rights.
Here in the UK, we have seen hate crimes against LGBT people surge in recent years. Reported hate crimes have almost tripled, from 6,655 in 2014-15 to 18,465 in 2019-20, and 80% of LGBT people do not report hate crimes. Behind those statistics, there are people hurting now. Although we are privileged in this place, even being an MP does not shield us from this. Since being elected, I have received a number of hateful communications sent to my parliamentary office based on my sexuality, and LGBT MPs receive disgusting abuse online and in person, as has sadly been raised by a number of hon. Members during this debate. The rise in hate crime is deeply concerning, yet the Government seem complacent and would rather spend hundreds of millions of pounds on a royal yacht than use it to crack down on hate crime. What will the Minister promise to do about it?
Trans people face daily discrimination, and it is vital that steps are taken to provide the equality of services and support that people need. Specialist health needs are often best addressed by trans health services offered by the NHS Gender Identity Development Service, but figures obtained by the BBC show that more than 13,500 transgender and non-binary adults are on the NHS GIDS waiting list in England. The average wait for a first appointment is 18 months, according to the national LGBT charity, the LGBT Foundation. That is in breach of patients’ legal entitlement under the NHS constitution to have their first appointment in a specialist service within 18 weeks of referral. The Government have promised to open three new clinics to reduce waiting lists by 1,600 by next year, but that will still leave more than 10,000 people, so what more will the Minister do, or will he blame that on the previous Health Secretary? Instead of taking action to end unlawful wait times and to update the Gender Recognition Act, the Government waste time and resources on stoking division within the LGBT community.
Last month marked 40 years since the first HIV cases were reported and, as we mourn and remember the members of our community who did not make old bones due to the AIDS pandemic, and the many elders whose support and wisdom my generation grew up without, we are all glad of how far we have moved on since then. In the UK, with our medical resources, HIV is no longer a death sentence. That is not yet the case throughout the world, however, and it is another reason why the Government should not cut our aid budget. We  are waiting for Ministers to publish the HIV action plan that would set out action to end new cases of HIV in England by 2030 and specifically what that says about increased testing for HIV and the availability of PrEP.
All those issues lead to disproportionately high levels of poor mental health among LGBT people, with half saying they have experienced depression. That has been an even greater challenge during lockdown, particularly among younger people, who in many cases have been confined with people—sometimes including family—who are unaware of or hostile to their sexual identities. As we heard in the incredibly powerful and courageous speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton, that can manifest itself in many ways, including turning to drugs and alcohol to try to bury the hurt and trauma, as facing up to it without support can be too painful to bear.
Unfortunately, unlike with other equality groups, we do not have enough data to assess the impact of the pandemic on LGBT people. Have Ministers asked those questions, or sought to find out over the past year? What will they now do to reach out to LGBT people to ascertain the facts?
There is also some confusion as to what plan the Government are working on to end LGBT inequality. Will the Minister confirm to the House today whether the LGBT action plan—published in 2018 and endorsed by the Prime Minister during the general election campaign—is still the work plan being followed by the Government Equalities Office? If so, what funding is being committed to achieve those outcomes? If not, what plan is the GEO following?
It is absolutely unacceptable that the Government have failed to bring forward legislative proposals to ban conversion therapies. It was promised under the previous Prime Minister in 2018 and then delayed and delayed and delayed. Now fears are growing that it will not be a comprehensive ban after all. Labour is clear: we will support a ban on all harmful conversion practices for LGBT people. Anything less will be just another broken Tory promise. We must hope that the current Minister has not converted her party away from its previous commitment and we will be scrutinising the legislation closely when it is finally brought forward.
That is not an alarmist view. The Conservatives have made it clear that they are not a party interested in supporting LGBT people. Last November, the Conservatives ended the £4 million funding for anti-LGBT bullying in our schools, in a move that echoes Thatcher’s section 28. This year alone, we have seen their whole LGBT advisory panel disbanded, with members citing a hostile environment for LGBT people. I commend the principles of those advisers but, I am afraid, in this Pride Month, what Ministers should instead feel is shame.

Mike Freer: First, I have to say that I am in something of an invidious position because normally I stand behind the Chair urging Ministers to be short. Now I am in the position of having to try to go long while ignoring the Bench Whips.
I pay tribute to the sponsors of the debate. The hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle) and I shared a platform many years ago, probably around 2004, so I  know her commitment on these issues over many years and I commend her passion, although I do not always share her analysis. My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) is a co-sponsor. I will touch on some of the technical issues he raised, but he also gave a message about having a supportive family. Despite having a supportive family, I still encountered issues, which shows that, while we have made progress, we still have issues to come. The hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson) made a powerful contribution. Indeed, the contributions from all the SNP Members who took part were particularly powerful and, in many ways, insightful.
The debate has, in the main, been one of good humour on both sides of the House. People may disagree on what still needs to be done, or disagree on the history of what has gone before, but the debate has allowed us to celebrate the achievements of what we have seen over the past few years while focusing on the issues that still remain. The first Pride event in this country was held in July 1972, inspired by the infamous Stonewall riots, and brave and determined people marched through Highbury fields in north London with one message: “We are here.” Today, that message remains the same: “We are here.” It is a simple message, but a powerful one. The importance of visibility cannot be underestimated, because to be seen is to be heard and to be counted, and that is the bedrock of our democratic society. There has been some discussion as to whether Pride is a protest or a celebration. In my view, it can be both.
I shall turn to some of the issues raised during the debate. A number of Members raised the international situation. Despite the changes that we have seen and can celebrate in the UK, globally there remain too many places where being LGBT is a daily struggle, where discrimination and violence are a daily occurrence and where tolerance and acceptance are a far-off dream. Members have commented that there are still 70 countries in the world today where it is illegal to be LGBT, and that in 11 of those, the death penalty remains on the statute book. While that remains the reality for millions of LGBT people around the world, it is important that Pride is seen not just as a month of events but as a global movement of visibility.
I am proud to say that this Government will host “Safe To Be Me”, a global equality conference that will bring together Government representatives, business leaders, civil society and international parliamentarians to address the safety of the LGBT community across the world. The conference is the next step in the UK’s journey towards equality and will focus on decriminalisation, progressing legislative reform, tackling violence and discrimination and ensuring equal access to public services for LGBT people.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) made reference to the work that we need to do with the Commonwealth. In 2020, we announced an additional £3.2 million of UK-funded projects to help Commonwealth Governments and civil society groups to reform outdated laws and end the legacy of discrimination and violence that persists today.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate and others asked whether the commitment from the Prime Minister would be delivered, and I can say that that commitment  is still sound and will be delivered. I cannot promise the £40 million that my hon. Friend was asking for; nor can I deliver the reform of the drugs laws. Those matters are well outside the brief of today. In addition to the £3.2 million for work in the Commonwealth, we have given an extra £800,000 to support the vital work of civil society organisations through the Commonwealth Equality Network, which works tirelessly to protect the rights of fellow citizens and to ensure that LGBT people live free from discrimination and violence. I was particularly pleased to see the recent appointment of my noble Friend Lord Herbert of South Downs as the UK’s special envoy on LGBT rights. That further highlights this Government’s commitment to LGBT people at home and abroad.
I will turn to one or two of the specific areas that we have covered today, starting with health. Numerous Members have talked about some of the issues facing the community when accessing health services. That is a regular focus of all our discussions in this House, and it is a focus of this Government’s LGBT work. The appointment of Dr Michael Brady as the first national adviser for LGBT health is another example of our commitment to level up outcomes for LGBT people. Appointed in April 2019, Dr Brady has already achieved a great deal: liaising across NHS England, he has worked to ensure that LGBT health inequalities are given consideration in its long-term planning and implementation. He is working on improving data collection on sexual orientation and gender identity; he has held roundtables on LGBT health; and he has hosted the first national NHS LGBT health conference, highlighting issues that LGBT people experience. This is firmly on the agenda of our Health Department and our equalities team.
On education, our manifesto made clear our commitment to helping teachers tackle anti-LGBT bullying, and the Government continue to fund anti-bullying projects. The Department for Education is tendering for a new anti-bullying programme that will include LGBT in its mandates. The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) asked some specific questions, and I will make sure that we get back to her with answers to all of them, but in particular, she asked about teacher training. Being married to a teacher, I know that this issue is covered, but I do not know whether it is covered to an extent that would satisfy the hon. Lady. I will ask my colleagues in the Department for Education who are responsible for that particular section of teacher training to make contact with her, so that we can have a proper discussion as to whether there are any gaps in teacher training that need to be filled.
Turning to one of the achievements, let us not forget that it was a Conservative-led Government who introduced same-sex marriage in 2013, and extended it to include couples in Northern Ireland last year. Between 2014 and 2017, 25,000 same-sex couples married in the UK, myself included—in fact, I think I was the first Conservative MP to use the legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) mentioned his 13-year civil partnership: those of us in this House know the strains of being a Member of Parliament, and will know the importance that we place on the support of our partners and our family. It is right to put on record that we pay tribute to our partners and our family for all they do to help us do our job in this place. That legislation on same-sex marriage has enabled tens of thousands to  enjoy the rights, privileges, and joy that marriage can bring. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington, who I know is disappointed about his delayed marriage, that I hope that this time next year, he will take part in this debate as a married man.
Of course, there is more still to do. Immense progress has been made since the first Pride march, but we still have to carry on with our progress to achieve full equality for LGBT people here at home. That is why the Government are committed to levelling up outcomes for LGBT people: as well as the groundbreaking global conference, we are committed to banning conversion therapy, tackling hate crime, and making it easier for trans people to access the support they need.

Wera Hobhouse: Will the Minister give way?

Mike Freer: Will the hon. Lady give me one moment? I may answer her question, or I may not.
With regard to conversion therapy, as announced in the Queen’s Speech, the Government will bring forward legislation to ban that practice. In order to ensure that this legislation places victims at the centre of that work, we will launch a consultation in September this year to ensure we get it right. This will be an important and groundbreaking piece of legislation, and the first action that any UK Government have taken to truly end conversion therapy.

Angela Eagle: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that this legislation will be a ban, that it will not talk about ending conversion therapy but about banning it, and that there will not be religious exemptions within it?

Mike Freer: The issue of the role of faith is obviously very difficult. From a personal point of view, representing a very diverse constituency, I realise the challenges that any Government face in getting this ban right. In terms of an outright ban, all I can say is that the Government will work to ensure that the harmful practice of conversion therapy will be banned. It is not a question of whether; it is a question of when. It is not if; it is how we will be doing it. In my view, having led the first debate on banning conversion therapy in 2015, if it was easy, it would have been done by now. It is a complex issue that we need to get right, and I do appreciate the drive and the passion to ban conversion therapy. I share that passion, but equally, I want to ensure that we get it right.
Despite all our progress, people continue to face homophobic, biphobic and transphobic hate crime. The Government remain committed to tackling this and work is under way to improve reporting and recording of LGBT hate crime. My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington asked how we would be improving not just reporting, but the training for our police officers so that they understand the issue and can respond to it better than they have in the past.
The Home Office funds multiple projects to tackle homophobic, biphobic and transphobic hate crime, which includes funding Galop, the nation’s leading LGBT anti-violence charity, to deliver the national lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans domestic violence helpline.
I will turn, if I may, to the Gender Recognition Act. The Government are clear that people who are transgender should be able to live their lives as they wish. As  announced in September 2020, after thorough consideration of the evidence and the wide range of views expressed in the previous Administration’s consultation, the Government believe that the current provisions of the GRA allow for those who wish to legally change their gender to do so. At the same time, the process of applying for a gender recognition certificate should be as straightforward and dignified as possible.
I will, if I may, turn to a couple of other issues. The hon. Member for Wallasey talked very powerfully about some of the impacts of the covid pandemic on LGBT people, such as homelessness, loneliness and not being in a supportive environment. Concerns have been raised that many LGBT people have been confined in homes with families who are not supportive of their sexual orientation or gender identity and with limited access to their support networks, leaving them feeling isolated. I have to say that I and my colleagues share that concern. The equality hub continues to engage with other Government Departments and organisations in the sector to understand how best to support LGBT people during the pandemic and, hopefully, in the final stages of it.

Charlotte Nichols: On the Minister’s point about the experience of LGBT people during the pandemic, will the Government commit to an equality impact assessment so that this can be properly measured and recorded and action can be taken based on the facts?

Mike Freer: I thank the shadow Minister for that question. I can only promise to take that back to my colleagues in the Government Equalities Office. As she knows, I am not a portfolio holder, but I support the equalities team. I will make sure that that issue is taken back and that she gets a full answer to her question.
The shadow of the pandemic hangs over the community and all the changes and the progress that we wish to make for the community. Pride is a moment of visibility. It is a living tradition, and it is obviously made difficult through doing it online, rather than the physical manifestation of walking through the streets.
There was some debate as to which was the gayest Parliament in the world. I fear, Madam Deputy Speaker, that we may need to have a gay-off to find out which is the gayest Parliament. To be fair, it is rather a nice thing that the crown of the gayest Parliament rests with either the UK Parliament or the Scottish Parliament. The fact that it rests within these isles is a testament to the progress that we have made.
Before I close, I want to mention a couple of colleagues, who I am not sure are in their places. I have to say to the Opposition Whips that given that the hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray) was a Pride steward, if he can corral the parade at Pride, I think he has a future in any Whips Office. I would also like to mention the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden). I have to say that I found his words humbling, and I can only say that his friends and family, and above all his constituents, will be enormously proud of what he has done. To bare your soul in such place as this, which can be an unforgiving place—but also a very forgiving place—took real courage, and I pay tribute to him for what he did today. I am sure he will find strength from colleagues across the House in the years to come.
Finally, I would like to pay tribute to the activists who have gone before us. None of us could be here as gay Members of Parliament or allies of the gay community,  none of us could have civil partnerships or get married, and none of us could have access to PEP, PrEP and even possibly HIV treatments without the work that so many activists have done before us. I have to say that I stand in awe of those who have put themselves out there to change society on my behalf. As we emerge from these difficult times, we can all be glad that the value and power of Pride is no less and is not diminished since that first march through Highbury Fields in 1972, and I thank all Members for their contributions today.

Angela Eagle: Normally one would have two minutes to respond, but I have a maximum of nearly 20 minutes in which to wind up this debate. However, right hon. and hon. Members on all sides of the House would probably like to know that I am not going to use the full allocation, and they may just be able to get out of here fast enough to catch that last tube home.
We have had an extraordinarily powerful debate, with contributions on all sides of the House from the many parliamentarians who are out and proud in what may or may not be the gayest Parliament in the world, but is certainly more of a barrel of laughs than it was when I first got here in 1992. I would like to thank my co-sponsors, the hon. Members for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) and for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson), for helping me to persuade the Backbench Business Committee to hold this debate today to recognise Pride 2021 at the end of this month of albeit mainly online celebrations. I have to say that it was not the most difficult job of persuasion I have ever had in my life, because the Backbench Business Committee was more than happy to accede to our wishes, and I think its members knew that we would have an occasion as moving and profound as the one we have had today.
I would like to highlight two speeches in particular. One was by the hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley), talking about her particular struggle being raised north of the border in a very religious environment and coming to terms with her own sexual orientation. Of course, the other speech, which most right hon. and hon. Members have mentioned, was that by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden). I think he has received and will continue to receive very many virtual hugs for the speech he made, because we are not allowed actual ones at the moment.
I think we all agree that everyone should feel confident and respected in our society, whatever their sexual orientation. We all of us agree that that has often been very far from the case, and that we have had to fight as LGBT people for our community to create the circumstances, political and otherwise, where we could make progress towards that end. I think we would all agree that we have made significant progress towards that end in the last 20 to 25 years, from quite difficult beginnings when I first came into this House.
Remember that I am only the second woman ever to come out as a Member of this House, and the pioneering one who came out, Maureen Colquhoun, was deselected and lost her seat as a result of being outed by the gossip columnist Nigel Dempster in the Daily Mail in the most cruel and disgusting circumstances.
Those circumstances, by the way, have an echo in the way that trans people are now being treated in our national newspapers and in the toxic so-called debate  that is happening on social media, which is precisely where we should not be having any debates. We should have debates in a calm atmosphere surrounded by respect rather than in the sewer that often is social media. People should understand, as I think they do in all parts of this House, how toxic that particular so-called debate is at the moment. We have to calm it down and ensure that people work together in respect so that we can go forward together.
I am disappointed—I hope that the Minister will not take this personally—that we did not have an Equalities Minister here today, because it is precisely their commitment, in the new Government post 2019, that we wanted to test. The debate that we had on conversion therapy in March was very disappointing in the way in which it was answered by the Minister for Equalities. Everyone in all parts of the House felt that way and communicated it to the Government after the debate in an unprecedented letter from the LGBT+ organisations in eight of the parties represented in this House. I am a little more reassured by what the Minister has said today. However, we must have, as soon as possible, a Bill that bans conversion therapy without loopholes and without religious exemptions, because religious exemptions or loopholes about trans children merely create the capacity for a coach and horses to be driven through the ban. We have not come this far to preside over the putting on to the statute book of something that is ineffectual and that allows this abuse and torture to continue. I hope that the Minister will take that back with him.
Many of us look forward to some progress on GRA reform. Again, the Minister was rather coy about what that would be or when it would happen. I was hoping that he would be able to give us a bit more information. If he would like to write to me with more information, that would be fantastic.
We need a commitment to getting sex and relationship education done properly in schools so that there is proper respect for all children as they are growing up and all children are equipped to deal with life as happy and healthy adults, which is equally important. That will be a contentious area if the Government do not stamp very quickly on some of the lies and incitements to hatred that are being planned and organised outside our schools.
I thank everyone who has contributed to the debate. I look forward to us making further progress. I also look forward to any kind of letter that the Minister might be able to send me to respond in more detail to some of those points. Happy Pride!

Eleanor Laing: Thank you. What an excellent debate! It is always wonderful when we finish a little early, not because it is about saving time, but because it means that everybody who wished to contribute has done so to the full extent that they wished, which is why there have been such good speeches this afternoon.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Pride Month.

Petition - Orchards Academy

Laura Trott: I rise, virtually, to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Swanley regarding the rebuilding of Orchards Academy, alongside an online petition on the same topic that has been signed by 1,333 people.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of Sevenoaks,
Declares that Orchards Academy in Swanley is in urgent need of a rebuild due to serious structural problems with the school building; further that all children should be given the opportunity to learn in a safe and welcoming environment; further that the children of Swanley and the surrounding area should have access to a safe and modern school fit for the twenty first century.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to bring forward measures that will ensure that Orchards Academy is rebuilt.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002671]

Social Housing: Housing Ombudsman

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Scott Mann.)

Siobhain McDonagh: Housing is by some distance the overwhelming issue brought to me by my constituents. Every Friday at my weekly advice surgery, I meet family after family on the 10,000-strong housing waiting list in Merton. I struggle to offer them any hope that they will soon have a place to call home, given that the demand is so high and the supply so small.
I meet countless hard-working families who are evicted by their private landlords simply because someone else will pay more rent. I meet families on the council’s transfer list—families with two, three and even four children in one-bedroom flats who will never, ever get to move to a larger home and whose children will never have the opportunity of a space to do their homework or to bring their friends to.
Far, far too regularly, I meet social housing tenants living in complete disrepair at the end of their tether with the endless hurdles that they face to fix even the smallest problems—residents such as Kwajo Tweneboa. The Minister may be familiar with his case already. In June, Kwajo bravely partnered with “ITV News”, which reported on the simply appalling conditions in which he and his neighbours are living, shining a light on the issue in every MP’s postbag.
I make clear right away my gratitude to Kwajo, to Daniel Hewitt and “ITV News”, and to Ann Baldwin and Debra Fryer from the Eastfields Residents Association for their collective commitment and determination in fighting not just their corner, but in support of their neighbours and—perhaps unknowingly—in support of social housing tenants right across our country.
I would like to start by directly addressing the disrepair at the estate as outlined in the report, before highlighting that it is by no means an isolated case. I will then detail the completely ineffective and bureaucratic system of tenants’ complaints procedures and so-called regulation, before concluding with the obvious steps that must be urgently taken by the Minister and his Government.
But first, Eastfields: a Clarion-owned housing estate in Mitcham in complete disrepair. My inbox is bursting with Clarion cases to the point that a weekly meeting now takes place between my office and Clarion’s to monitor the progress on each individually. But it should never have reached that point. A weekly meeting is no solace for Kwajo. He lives in a property overtaken by mice, cockroaches, damp and mould. Tragically, his father passed away last year from cancer. Kwajo says that he asked for help before he died and nobody listened. The problems have since continued:
“Nobody should have to live needing to heat water in a pot to bathe with because their water doesn’t work and their landlord won’t fix it. Nobody should be having their kitchen sink and washing machine fill with sewage water. Nobody should watch a ceiling collapse right next to their son, studying during lockdown, after already complaining countless times asking for it to be fixed. This is our reality.”
The problem in Merton is that a significant amount of Clarion’s stock is at the end of its life. Some of it is on the waiting list to be redeveloped, but a solution years down the line is no excuse for letting paying residents  wait and live in squalor. Everyone agrees that Eastfields needs to be regenerated and demolished, but that does not solve the disrepair across the other estates that so desperately also need to be redeveloped.
Kwajo’s case is no anomaly. Take Ms P of the Phipps Bridge estate. For over 18 months my office has been badgering Clarion about an external leak into her property resulting in damp and mould, damaging her floor and decoration, and causing all manner of electrical concerns. Clarion has been unable to stop the water supply to her block and to her flat. Her flat is so small that she sleeps on the sofa so that her teenage son can have the only bedroom. However, when the damp took over the bedroom, both mum and 17-year-old son were forced to share the living room. She has been forced to take days off work without pay so that the repairs can be done, only to be frustrated when contractors do not turn up or do not complete the job.
Or take Ms N. I contacted Clarion on 11 May to report water pouring from the property above and through her fuse box and electrics—a huge health and safety concern that surely needed an urgent resolution, particularly when the water was leaking further to the flat below. It took a team of surveyors and contractors to discover that the source of the leak was a bath fitted by United Living in the flat above which had not been sealed by mastic. How on earth did this take six weeks to solve? If there is a leak in my house, I phone a plumber and he comes around that day, but if he does not come around, I get another plumber and the problem is solved.
Or take a second Ms P, of Sadler Close. I first raised her case with Clarion in 2014—yes, 2014. There was a catalogue of problems: water pressure, constant leaks, rodent infestation, damp, mould. Her property is in complete disrepair. Ultimately, I contacted the ombudsman in February 2020. I understand that it has been quite a year, but it did not formerly consider her case until April 2021. For the past year and a half, she has been batted between the ombudsman and Clarion and is still waiting for a resolution.
I now turn to the Clarion complaints process. To make a complaint and see it through to its conclusion at Clarion requires the patience of a saint, the tenacity of a five-star general, an endless amount of phone data, a laptop to email, and a post-graduate degree in bureaucracy. The complainant starts by dealing with a call centre where nobody knows their name or where they live, where nobody is responsible for their complaint, and where the call handlers do not have access to the records of the contractors that do the work, such as ENGIE, United Living and ARK
If people do not get the repairs done, their only option is to go through a two-stage written complaints process. If they ever mention the threat of legal action, they can expect their case to be shut down immediately. Mentioning legal action is a polite way to express the frustration that many people must feel.
Sometimes I feel like I work for Clarion. Prior to lockdown, my process was to complain about a case twice in writing and then I would book a site meeting if it remained unresolved. I intend to go back to that approach when restrictions are lifted. I do not care if it takes hours and hours of my week; I am going to pursue every case, and I am going to run them as ragged as they run some of my constituents.

Jim Shannon: I commend the hon. Lady for her tenacity and strength of character, and for delivering on behalf of her constituents. None of us fails to be impressed by her commitment to them. She is absolutely right to say that it is important to rebalance the relationship between landlords and tenants. If the ombudsman cannot make that happen, I believe that the Minister has to be the person to crack the whip.

Siobhain McDonagh: There is a solution at hand. The Minister knows about it, but it has as yet not been introduced.
I understand the dilemma for housing associations. I have the greatest of respect for them. Before entering the House, when I had a proper job, I worked for Battersea Churches Housing Trust, an organisation that, like so many housing associations, came out of its community in response to the horrors of “Cathy Come Home”. It was led by people of faith who did not always get everything right, but who knew their tenants and their properties. Everything that made housing associations great was undermined by the incoming coalition Government slashing the social housing budget by 50% overnight, reducing it from £9.5 billion to £4.2 billion, slashing capital grants and attempting to make up the difference through the introduction of an unaffordable “affordable” rent, where tenants were to pay a rent of 80% market value.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Scott Mann.)

Siobhain McDonagh: I was just waxing lyrical about the financing structures introduced by the coalition Government, slashing the grants to build houses and trying to make up the difference by introducing an “affordable” rent of 80% market value—attempting to shore up the system on the backs of some of poorest people in the country.
The whole system relied on those housing associations having ever larger borrowing power and equity in their stock, which in turn forced mergers, taking them further away from their community and their tenants. That is an invidious position to say the least. The choice is to either stop providing houses for those in most need in order to retain their integrity and their local commitment, or to grapple with the new funding regime to continue to do the best they could to provide those homes. The coalition Government battered our social housing system from pillar to post. They even completely abolished the Audit Commission and the Housing Inspectorate under the bonfire of the quangos, so that we now need to talk about reinventing the wheel a decade on. The evidence could not be clearer that their belief in self-regulation in reality means no regulation. I will pursue Clarion, but I also pledge to badger the Government because that is where the ultimate blame lies.
On the problem with the housing ombudsman, with my remaining time I would like to consider the options available for Kwajo, or indeed any resident in his shoes, to complain about the performance of his housing association. First, the ombudsman is an authority that looks at the process, not the disrepair. To make a complaint in the first place you have to go through  Clarion’s previously described multi-stage complaints process. When you finally get through the system, and if you have the patience and tenacity left, then you start the ombudsman process from scratch only to find that you need a signed form from a designated person such as an MP or a councillor, or to wait eight whole weeks if you do not—more hurdles, more bureaucracy. And when you eventually reach the burdensome finishing line, the ombudsman is looking not at whether your leak has been fixed, but at whether the process to fix your leak is correct. Oh, and you have to hope that your complaint falls on the right day of the week because they do not take phone calls on a Tuesday or a Thursday. Can the Minister honestly tell me that if he had water dripping through his ceiling electrics that that is a process he would have the patience to follow? I cannot.
The alternative is to take your complaint to the social housing regulator. However, it states:
“By law, our remit does not include proactive monitoring of how a registered provider performs or complies with our consumer standards…By law, we can only take action against a landlord when it has made significant, systemic failure that breaches the standards we have set.”
and that
“Although our role is not to resolve individual disputes between tenants and landlords we signpost tenants, or their representatives, who have individual complaints, to the Housing Ombudsman Service.”
Back to square one. While the regulator is required to proactively regulate economic standards of housing associations, it can only take action on consumer standards reactively when it finds evidence of “serious detriment” to tenants—hardly helpful. It is no wonder that the regulator concluded that no regulatory action was needed when inspecting Clarion on the back of endless complaints from Tower Hamlets councillors five years ago. It said:
“From the information we considered, we could see there were individual incidents of service failures, including in relation to Clarion’s handling of some complaints, but we have not seen evidence of systemic failings by Clarion which would necessitate regulatory action.”
However, the regulator did not meet directly with a single tenant or leaseholder as part of the investigation.
To recap, if I was Kwajo, living in disrepair at Eastfields and waiting endlessly for the regeneration to begin, and I had water pouring through my ceiling, the bureaucratic hurdles in my path would include a multi-stage complaints process with my landlord, the securing of the backing of an MP or councillor or an eight-week wait for an ombudsman to analyse whether due process had been followed and a regulator that would signpost me back to the ombudsman. Is it any wonder he is crying out for help? We are asking people to go through a process that I personally would not have the patience to deal with, and we are then surprised at the anger and frustration that pours out.
The Minister will be delighted to hear that the solution is in his hands. I draw to his attention the Government’s social housing White Paper, which envisages a thorough strengthening of the regulator’s role in consumer issues, of the type abolished by the Government before last. The regulator would be proactive. It would monitor and drive landlords’ compliance with improved consumer standards. It would introduce routine inspections for  the largest landlords every four years. It would give the regulator a power to publish a code of practice on consumer standards. It would strengthen the regulator’s enforcement power, and it would introduce a new power to arrange emergency repairs if needed, where a survey uncovers evidence of systemic landlord failure. It sounds like a huge step in the right direction, does it not, so what is the problem? Not a single word was given in the Queen’s Speech to enacting those solutions into law.
If the legislation is not introduced in this parliamentary Session, Kwajo and his neighbours will wait in excess of five years to get anything done and for the regulatory system to be improved. Are this Government asking them to wait in squalor until that time?
I urge the Minister in the strongest terms to use his authority and call for this legislation to receive the Government time and priority it so obviously needs. While I am certain that a strengthened regulator would be a positive step in the right direction, I am under no illusion that it does not build a single new socially rented home. In Merton alone, there are 9,485 households on the housing waiting list, but just 74 two-beds, 32 three-beds and three four-beds have been available in the past year. It is a national problem. We now have 1.15 million households on social housing waiting lists across the country, but just 6,566 new social homes were built last year, one of the lowest numbers on record. At that rate, it will take 175 years to give everyone on the waiting list a social rented home. Where is the ambition? Where is the political will?
I finish with the words of Ann, who chairs the Eastfields residents association. She said:
“It angers me that it had to take a report by an ITV news journalist to highlight the disgraceful conditions that Clarion are happy for their tenants to live in. These residents had been living in these circumstances for years, having to pay rent to live in substandard housing. The Government need to tighten up regulations, bringing in a similar idea to Ofsted to hold housing associations to account. Because nobody living in the 21st Century should be expected to live this way.”
If only there were a White Paper waiting for Government time.

Luke Hall: I congratulate and thank the hon. Lady for bringing this debate before the House. I know how important the provision of safe and decent social housing is to her. She has spoken passionately on behalf of Kwajo and so many of her constituents who want to see progress in the area, so I am grateful to have the opportunity to discuss this important agenda and set out what we are doing to try to improve the lives of social housing tenants.
Hearing the hon. Lady’s remarks, and seeing the news reports over recent weeks, has highlighted the plight of some residents of social housing who are struggling with unacceptable conditions and landlord services. These cases have raised critical questions for many people involved in social housing, which is why the White Paper—I will come on to that—is such an important step in addressing some of those questions.
Of the 23 million households in this country, 17% are in the social rented sector, with 2.5 million people renting from a housing association, and 1.6 million people renting from a local authority. People in social housing must be treated with dignity and respect, and have their complaints  handled effectively. The recent cases we have heard about today highlight the fact that some residents are simply not receiving a quality service from their landlord. We heard about the terrible conditions in a Croydon council housing block, and the council has commissioned ARK Consultancy to carry out an independent investigation. ARK’s report assesses what went wrong, and sets out the steps that Croydon Council must take to address those failings.
The Regulator of Social Housing has concluded its investigation into the issues in Croydon, and found the council to be in breach of its consumer standards. The regulator is working with the council to ensure that it takes the necessary action to remedy those issues. It is also considering information received from Clarion Housing Association about the Eastfields estate, which we have heard so much about. It will form a view on whether there is evidence of systemic failure that would indicate a breach of regulatory standards.
The Government were appalled to hear and learn about the conditions on the Eastfields estate. Social homes must be safe and decent, and provide security and dignity for residents, who should be treated with respect. If things go wrong, there should be swift redress. In this shocking case those expectations were not met. I understand Ann’s anger, and I thank her for the work she is doing on behalf of residents.
A review of decent homes standards has begun, as has work to improve fire and electrical safety, and address harm from carbon monoxide. I understand that Croydon has accepted its failings in full, and the regulator is considering future progress. The Housing Ombudsman has an important role in improving residents’ experience of social housing. It experienced a big drop in the number of inquiries and complaints last spring, in 2020, due to the impact of the pandemic, but in recent months the number of complaints has significantly increased. Just over 6,000 complaints and inquiries were made between January and March this year, which is a 73% increase compared with the same quarter last year. Although some of those issues may have been deferred during the pandemic and stored up to be raised now, we cannot accept that this is a new normal. The increase underlines the need of landlords to adhere to the good practice set out in the complaint handling code. It is clear that some landlords have significant work to do to improve the standard of their homes, and the service they provide to their residents.
Croydon has highlighted issues of damp and mould in the Eastfields case, and the ombudsman recently issued a call for evidence to support investigation into that. That was in response to data that suggested a high rate of maladministration in those cases, and the significant impact that had on the lives of so many residents. The investigation will enable the ombudsman to make recommendations to help landlords improve their services. Despite the shocking cases highlighted in Croydon and Eastfields, there are positive signs of broader improvement in standards.

Siobhain McDonagh: How would the Minister resolve problems of damp and mould growth in a one-bedroom flat where there is a mum and four or five children? I do not think any landlord in the country could do that. We are desperate for Eastfields to be regenerated, and we completely support Clarion in its efforts to do that.  That is the only way people on that estate will get to live in houses of the size they need. For those not at Eastfields, there is not the same way out.

Luke Hall: I thank the hon. Lady again for that point. I am always happy to discuss that in detail with her, including outside this debate, and I am happy to hear more about the individual cases she has raised that are so shocking and so worrying.
I think, however, that we are seeing some signs of broader improvements. If we look back to 2019, we see that 12% of dwellings in the social rented sector failed to meet the decent homes standard. That is down from 20% in 2010. This is lower than the proportion of the private rented sector and owner-occupied homes that fail the standard, but it is still not good enough. That is why we are reviewing the decent homes standard as a key plank of our “The charter for social housing residents: social housing white paper”, which we published in November 2020.
The charter for social housing residents states that every social housing resident in England should be able to expect to be safe in their home, should know that their landlord is performing, should have their complaints dealt with properly and fairly, should be treated with respect, should have their voice heard, should have a good-quality home and neighbourhood to live in, and should be supported to take their first step to ownership. The reforms set out in the White Paper, which underpins the charter, will drive change throughout the social housing sector, as the hon. Lady said, ensuring that everyone working in the sector listens to residents and treats them with courtesy and respect.
We know that many landlords are passionate about putting their residents first and we want to see that approach replicated throughout the sector. That is why our reform package will transform social housing redress and consumer regulation. It will improve the quality and safety of social homes and rebalance the relationship between landlords and tenants. The regulator of social housing will be given stronger powers to proactively monitor and drive compliance with consumer standards, with regular inspections of the largest landlords and new tenant satisfaction measures to help assess landlord performance on issues such as repairs and complaints handling. The White Paper emphasises the importance of the ombudsman service in ensuring that residents can access swift and fair redress when things go wrong. It sets out the range of measures to increase the ombudsman’s impact in driving up standards, including through closer working with the regulator of social housing.
The hon. Lady mentioned the Housing Ombudsman Service, which is compulsory for social landlords, and its membership consists of over 2,300 landlords representing over 4.5 million individual households. The White Paper has set out how we have already acted to enable the ombudsman to take decisions more quickly. If we look at the ombudsman’s average determination rate for formal investigations in 2019-20, we see that it was below its six-month target at 5.8 months. It is the first time that that target has been achieved, so it is positive news that the performance is better than it has been, and we are trying to speed up access to the ombudsman by removing the democratic filter that the hon. Lady talked about through the building safety Bill. That will allow residents with unresolved complaints to have  direct access to the ombudsman rather than having to wait eight weeks or approach an MP, a councillor or a tenant panel for a referral. That is an important point that she and many others have raised many times before.
We have strengthened the ombudsman’s powers so that it can take stronger action against landlords and better support residents when things go wrong. There is a very high level of compliance by landlords with compliance orders: 95% within three months and 99% within six months. Landlords were ordered to pay compensation to residents totalling £412,000 across the year, and last year three quarters of residents who sought support with an informal resolution of complaints said that the ombudsman had helped them.
Since the White Paper was published, the Housing Ombudsman, Richard Blakeway, has made further progress in responding to the White Paper agenda, including establishing a 600-strong resident panel that will involve residents in the development of the ombudsman service, in publishing a framework that sets out how the ombudsman will look beyond individual disputes to identify problems that need to be addressed across the sector, and launching that investigation into damp and mould—an issue, again, that I know is very important to many of the hon. Lady’s constituents—as well as by publishing determinations in individual cases and the landlord performance data, and issuing complaint handling failure orders when landlords fall short of the standards set out in the complaints handling code that we published last summer.
We know, however, that many of the most egregious complaints never reach the ombudsman, meaning that some residents miss out on the support that could be offered to them. That is why the White Paper sets out plans for a communication campaign to ensure that social housing residents know how to complain when things go wrong and that they have confidence in the process. Earlier this year, we ran a five-week campaign on social media with the slogan “Make Things Right”. That campaign has helped to improve awareness of the  ability to raise these issues and has raised confidence in the process. We are absolutely committed to implementing the reforms that were laid out in our charter for social housing residents. They will deliver transformational change for social residents. We continue to develop our proposals on social housing regulations and want to legislate as soon as is practicable.

Siobhain McDonagh: When? What month? What year?

Luke Hall: Unfortunately, I cannot give the hon. Lady a date at this point, but we want to do it as soon as we are possibly able to, and when the proposals are right and ready. We share her urgency and passion to get this done, but we want to develop our reforms and get them in the right place. We will legislate as soon as we can, but of course we understand the urgency of the issues that she has raised. I know how important this is to the hon. Lady and her constituents, and that there are so many issues that could be addressed. Perhaps I could meet her to talk about some of them in more detail in the coming days and weeks, so that we can hear more about her constituents’ concerns. I am very grateful to her.
We want to ensure that the system for handling social housing residents’ complaints is fit for purpose and accessible, and that it drives improvements for individual complainants and for the benefit of all the residents in a community. That is why we are taking action to ensure that the social housing sector is better regulated, that residents have better and faster access to redress, and fundamentally to rebalance the relationship between landlords and residents.
The charter for social housing residents sets out what every social housing resident should be able to expect. The measures set out in the White Paper will ensure that those expectations become a reality for all residents.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.